S. Korea withdrawal

This is where we realize that the troops are just spread too thin. So instead of keeping a closer eye on someone who flaunts his nuclear program, we've sent all our troops on a fool's quest to a country that never had them, and are now forcing those troops to stay.

The thought occurs to me - it seems that a democracy with volunteer enlistment would have a naturally lower enlistment rate into that nation's military services. North Korea has a military of 1.1 million with a population of almost 22.5 million people. South Korea, with over double the population at 48 million, has only 690,000 troops.

I would hazard a guess that secretive North Korea probably doesn't have voluntary enlistment. However, countries like ours have a much harder time equaling those numbers, at least when the draft is not in place. So we resort to whatever means necessary to induce volunteerism - from fearmongering and jingoism to free education to appealing to that rare sense of authentic patriotism.

So how do we protect ourselves? How do we retain power over a country that strong?

First of all, that's the wrong question. America has the strongest military in the world. But we're only stronger than the runner-up, not everyone. Unless we're stronger than ALL countries put together, we cannot hope to dominate world politics through military power alone. This is a good thing. Because that would tempt us to thwart the free will of other sovereign nations (not that it's stopping us).

But rather than blaming America for all the hate, let's assume that some other countries are amassing large armies and genuine WMDs out of deep-seated zealotry against what we stand for (and not just in response to our own aggressive stance). How do we protect ourselves against them? How do we protect against multiple opponents?

A pre-emptive stance, the cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, dooms us to failure. It energizes our opponents and spreads our own troops far too thin, as is happening now. In short, it weakens our country and leaves us far too vulnerable.

Instead, we must redefine the battlefield. To use a martial arts analogy, a larger opponent (US) does have obvious advantages. But he can still be dominated by a faster, smarter opponent. And when several smaller, faster opponents strike at once, he's doomed. First, he needs allies. Just as WE need allies. Alienating our allies weakens us every bit as much as emboldening our enemies. Second, he needs a defensive strategy. Rushing after one opponent, then another, again leaves a fighter open. A smart fighter takes nothing for granted, even a perceived weaker position for the opponent. A smart fighter stops, stays ready, and responds quickly and strategically to any act of aggression, making no such acts of his own.

That, I believe, would be the most sensible strategy for us. If we as a democracy truly are the guardians of free will and individual liberty across the world, a concept I am not opposed to, then we must redefine the battlefield. You cannot force free will onto another - that's a contradiction. We are all at choice, but we must come to that realization on our own, guided and aided by those who truly care about our highest potential.

Likewise, the people of an oppressed nation cannot be forced into freedom. This is hypocrisy. It's also futile and stupid, fostering rage against our aggression and leaving our own democracy weakened. But we CAN set the example, convey the information, provide the safe haven, and offer the means through which freedom can manifest itself.

Those in a closed society, such as North Korea, cannot be bullied into choosing democracy, as we saw through several failed attempts to do just that in the region. When they are strong enough to pose a challenge, we must rely on diplomacy and communication to maintain peace, while holding a strong defensive stance in case they decide to get aggressive themselves. Then if, given all the options, the citizens of that society choose to keep their present system, we must honor that choice. It's simply not our place to enforce our standards on other cultures.

Of course, the other half of the equation: in order to set the example of freedom, we must honor freedom within our own country. We're certainly trying, but we have a ways to go, especially now.

Notice that I haven't said a thing about Iraq. It's because we all know that freedom was never the issue. Overthrowing the evil dictator was never a reason, nor was it ever given as a reason except in shamed hindsight. That war is wrong for more reasons than I care to list today.