The most common face of U.S. influence abroad in recent years has been that of the U.S. military. Several polls have been conducted over the past months indicating that people in the U.S. hold a wide range of opinions about the different ways of using the U.S. military, but nearly all agree that military force should only be used as a last resort. While there is growing tension among Americans about where and how to use the U.S. military, there is overwhelming support for active duty troops and veterans.

Many current and retired military leaders, as well as many politicians of both parties, have spoken of the importance of broadening our understanding of security. The important principles they see for rethinking U.S. military power include the following:

The U.S. Needs a Comprehensive Strategy focused on Prevention
A smart strategy against global terrorism will be comprehensive, not one-dimensional. Many military experts say military action may not be the most effective strategy against highly decentralized terrorist networks embedded in societies we don't fully understand. In cases such as these we're likely to achieve more through other strategies available to us, strategies that focus on preventing terrorism through development and diplomacy. In 2003, Libya responded to years of talks and pressure from the U.S. and others by deciding that the best use for its nuclear weapons program was to give it up. Preventive strategies like intelligence sharing and international teamwork to disrupt terrorist financial networks, better and more balanced development practices, and anti-corruption campaigns help to undermine the foundations of extremism.

Military leaders like General Tony Zinni in his book The Battle for Peace, argue the U.S. needs to rethink how we engage with the rest of the world. A Vietnam veteran, General Zinni identifies development and diplomacy as essential tools in building U.S. and global security; tools that we are not currently funding or using in effective ways. Zinni states clearly in his book "The battle for peace is not a battle in the classical sense; a battle that follows the sudden crisis blow that triggers a military conflict. The battle is the constant struggle to develop and build the measures, programs, systems, and institutions that will prevent crisis."

Homeland Security is Part of our Defense.
U.S. security depends on the strength of communities to hold together, to protect basic values in human rights, democracy, and liberty for all who live here. True security requires the building of communities where everyone is welcome and ready to work together to build security. It requires the self-confidence to invite others from around the world to visit and experience a democratic, welcoming society.

Homeland security helps safeguard ourselves and makes it clear that targeting us won't be easy. We can do more to frustrate attacks on our ports, borders, cities, and industry; we can make sure that firefighters, police, hospital staffs, and others on the front lines, including the National Guard, have the equipment they need; and we can close the communication gaps among local and national officials.

Right now, the U.S. is not investing enough on Homeland Security according to many experts, like those on the 9/11 Commission. The war in Iraq is costing U.S. taxpayers $177 million per day. The Congressional 2006 budget allocation for port security is $175 million for the year. Port security experts say this is far too little to adequately prevent terrorism in U.S. ports.

The U.S. public can get involved in preparing for crises by strengthening local communities. Community centers and churches, temples, mosques, and other religious centers can begin to build rapid response networks that will be able to react immediately after a crisis. Community groups can build better relationships between different religious and ethnic groups so that when a crisis occurs, everyone is ready to work together for the common good.

Use Strategies that Undermine Support for Terrorism
While it may be tempting to think that overwhelming force is the solution to destroying terrorist networks, there is no evidence that it works. On the contrary, there are more Al Qaeda members today than there were in 2001, the numbers of insurgents in Iraq increase monthly, and the recent attempt to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon seems to have increased its regional popularity.

Many security experts now agree that the war in Iraq is increasing the number of Al Qaeda recruits and increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks rather than decreasing them. In September 2004, the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Board issued a strategic communications report written for Donald Rumsfeld in which they state that the war in Iraq has led to the vast majority of people in Arab and Muslim countries holding an unfavorable view of the U.S. According to the report, “Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities.”

"In the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds," the Pentagon's report says, American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." The report concludes that Muslims do not "hate our freedoms," but rather they hate U.S. policies.

As we have seen in Iraq, it is possible to win a military victory against a dictator and simultaneously create a chaotic and unstable situation in which terrorist groups are able to multiply and to act with impunity. The truth is that using extreme force that inflicts casualties on civilian populations strengthens the resolve of terrorists and increases their popularity among those who are outraged by heavy-handed military tactics. Use of military power can make us less secure by contributing to disorder rather than order. If civilians are hurt in attempts to stop terrorists, then the survivors often turn against the U.S. and instead lend their support to further acts of terror.

Many people in the Iraqi city of Fallujah welcomed U.S. forces in March 2003. During the first year of U.S. presence in Fallujah, military personnel were successful in working with Iraqi leaders in community policing. Not one shot was fired at U.S. soldiers under this policy that rested on local diplomacy with Fallujah's people and their leaders. After four U.S. contractors were brutally killed by insurgents in Fallujah in April 2004, the General in charge of the community policing effort was replaced. The next U.S. officer in charge abandoned efforts to negotiate with sympathetic local leaders and began a strategy attempting to bomb the insurgents into submission. As U.S. forces dropped 500lb bombs on densely populated urban areas of Fallujah in March 2004, the insurgency grew to 2500 people. Following this U.S. initiative, the U.S. military came under regular attack from armed insurgents in the local population. After a second round of military efforts to wipe out the insurgency with overwhelming firepower in November 2004, insurgency numbers grew to 25,000-30,000. Military leaders in Iraq acknowledge that these "shock and awe" military strategies did more to fuel the insurgency rather than stop it .

The U.S. strategy for stopping terrorism will be more successful if it plans for the long term. The U.S. strategy for stopping terrorism will be more successful if it plans for the long term. Part of our defense against extremists who use terrorism as a tactic is helping to shape a world where we win back that audience. The U.S. shows that our values and commitments are real and have meaning by living by them in what we do overseas, and by protecting the civil liberties and freedoms that make our country what it is at home.

Groups like Al Queda take advantage of places where America is hated and feared. Working now to gain the trust and respect of others, by listening to their views and showing respect for their priority concerns -- disease, economic growth, poverty -- is an investment in our long-term security.   Groups like Al Queda use conflict, injustice, and indignity as recruiting tools. It's in our interest to be on the side of those working to end violence, not exploit it, in places like the Middle East. It's in our interest to be on the side of those working to end violence, not exploit it, in places like the Middle East.

Training of Soldiers for the Tasks of Policing and Reconstruction
The press reported widely that our troops were deployed, particularly in Iraq, without the type of training that was required for the jobs they were asked to do: running local elections, building relationships with local leaders, and working with the local population to identify groups planning on disrupting the political process.

Local populations where terrorist cells often hide are more likely to cooperate and share information if their civilian members are treated respectfully and protected. Reducing the effectiveness and the popularity of terrorist groups requires a careful use of minimal force to pick up terrorist groups combined with preventive efforts to build relationships with those who might be inclined to join such groups. Specialized multinational police units equipped and trained with the sophisticated new generation of non-lethal weapons developed by the military may be more successful in capturing operatives and gaining information on terrorist cells.

Coordinate with Other Nations to Stop Deadly Weapons
The U.S. can do a great deal, working with others around the world, to protect ourselves from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons already in existence. Governments like those of Russia and Ukraine have actually asked us for help in securing or destroying their dangerous materials. Russia alone has enough nuclear material to make 60,000 nuclear bombs on top of the 20,000 it already has. Sixty percent of those materials are unsecured and vulnerable to theft. It is extremely important to lock down or destroy these materials. But progress has been too slow. At current rates of spending, it will take us another 10 years to secure just the materials.

We can do better. U.S. security depends on a global partnership to prevent these weapons from being built in the first place. The weapons trade spans the globe; our partnerships to stop these profiteering networks must be equally global. Deadly weapons are contagious and we want to stop their spread before it begins.

The parts of the world today where countries and terrorist groups are looking to acquire these weapons are among the most unstable; i.e. the Middle East and South Asia. Where conflicts have been resolved -- in South Africa and its neighbors, in Europe, and in the major countries of South America -- no one is looking to build these deadly weapons anymore. That's why helping to end conflicts is an investment in our own security.

Keep an Eye on the Big Picture
Smart problem-solvers look at causes as well as symptoms. Having an immediate impact is not necessarily the same as achieving lasting results. A responsible and effective foreign policy will tackle what's urgent – i.e. protecting Americans from terrorist attacks -- without neglecting what's important like addressing the hopelessness and indignity that can make fanaticism and terrorism attractive in the first place. We can't afford tunnel vision or shortsightedness when it comes to facing the complex challenges of the 21st century.

If we rely too heavily on a military strategy, we may miss important investments in protecting ourselves from threats other than terrorism. We'll miss opportunities to join with others in addressing long-term environmental threats, like global warming, before they balloon into crises. We'll miss opportunities to nurture the trust and cooperation of other nations—nations which may be wondering why they should contribute to the fight against terrorism when we don't seem to care much about their concerns. And without the trust and cooperation of other nations, our ability to play a constructive role in solving a wide range of global problems will be limited. We're better off and more successful when we have partners, and when our actions enjoy the respect and support of other nations.

We have a high stake in investing in alliances and partnerships. We have benefited from the goodwill and hard work of UN peacekeepers to track stolen explosives in the Sahara Desert; of international bankers to track accounts in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere; of telephone companies in Switzerland to track phone cards used in Pakistan; and of the law enforcement agencies and coast guards of a dozen countries to shut down export businesses in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Dismantling al-Qaeda's worldwide networks requires strong diplomacy, policing, and intelligence -- and strong cooperation with other countries.

» click to read about Overview of 3D Security

» click to read about Development as a Security Strategy

» click to read about Diplomacy as a Security Strategy

The 3D Security Initiative offers thanks to www.USintheWorld.org for their contributions to help Americans talk about global issues.