SEARCH:
washingtonpost.com
Web
| Search Archives

What Even a Strong Military Can't Do

TOOLBOX

Resize
Save/Share +

COMMENT

Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who's Blogging

» Links to this article
Saturday, July 26, 2008; Page A14

As the daughter of a career Air Force man and the wife of a career Navy man, I can appreciate Michael Rubin's caution to Sen. Barack Obama regarding a strong military ["Topic A: Obama in Berlin," op-ed, July 25].

I disagree, however, with his statement that "rose petals and well-digging have never stopped bombs, racism or genocide. A strong military has."

A strong military allows for cease-fires and surrender of the seemingly less powerful force, but any student of history knows that that is only a short-term remedy for racism and genocide.

It is the unifying actions of building schools, planting crops and finding drinkable water that allow for the reality that there is no reason to drop a bomb, be racist or feel the need to wipe out an entire ethnic group. A strong military is needed only when a culture feels the need to have power over another. The long-term solution of peace is derived from unity, not divisiveness.

LORI ROCK

Alexandria


© 2008 The Washington Post Company