Our civilization is comprised of ideologues and pragmatists, and it can be hard to distinguish which is which on different issues. The problem is complicated by overlays of competition and power between those seeking peaceful coexistence through diplomatic dialogue and those intent on demonstrating military strength. These contrasts have existed internally in many countries and internationally throughout history. A recent example is the reasoning underlying America’s precipitous 201_ withdrawal from combative engagement in remote Afghanistan. The ideologues’ justifiable position that warfare with allies on moral grounds and false confidence in victory was shattered by the reality that the desired outcome would prove extraordinarily costly in time, manpower, equipment, habitat, environment and prestige. Ideologues who initiated the campaign simply were ill-suited to end it effectively with an orderly withdrawal. The tactical mistake of abandoning enormous quantities of modern military equipment in a distant region controlled by notoriously unruly people has simply fortified hostile forces with means of withstanding another attack or employing those assets to invade others. What were we thinking? Current world unrest reinforces the need for defensive military capability, and advanced technology results in faster response and more lethal execution. It also calls for closer oversight by the ideological pacifists because of its devastating potential. We need talented and respected national leadership that presents a proactive and peaceful vision for the country while pragmatically strengthening its defensive capabilities against totalitarian regimes. Phil Osifer