When the first images of tsunami ravaged South Asia hit US televisions on December 26th our immediate response was to reach out to the victims in the form of aid and development assistance. When the next images appearing on the nightly news were of another Iraqi home shattered by explosions, we winced. Is it surprising then that Indonesia - the largest Muslim nation in the world - views US offers of relief through military aid with suspicion? How will our ability to help other nations in times of crisis, or to attain liberty, be affected by our focus on military solutions? Can we expect to do both? What might our role in the world be - if our priorities and practices shifted? What are the greatest needs of the world right now - how could we help?

The focus on military force is fraught with problems - the cost of war shows no sign of decreasing - not only eating up our discretionary spending, but commanding additional funds to maintain a military presence in the world. In Iraq, news that the country has now become a "breeding ground" for terrorism makes the CIA questions our ability to meet the established goals. Is our strategy in Iraq working? What can we do now?

• Military operations in Iraq currently cost $4.5 billion a month - covering current operating costs only - a new White House request for $100 billion is expected to reach Congress soon.

As President Bush prepares his fifth State of the Union address, new polls show that Americans are less supportive of a preemptive military focus and more interested in how we might work with the rest of the world in everything from fighting terror to global climate change. Will these bi-partisan concerns be considered by the current Administration? How might our approach to dealing with the rest of the world change over the next four years? What will be the domestic and international consequences if we do not change?

A recent PIPA poll getting national attention revealed that:

• Over half of both parties agreed that the primary lesson of 9/11 was that the US needed to cooperate more with other countries to fight terrorism.
  
  
• Majorities on both sides agreed that the US should make preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and international terrorism a priority, strengthen the UN, participate in the international criminal court and only go to war with a government that is supporting terrorism if they pose an imminent threat to the US or with the approval of the UN Security Council.

On January 30, Iraqis will go to the polls in their first democratic election. Already, concerns are high about voter disenfranchisement and registration problems. What it this election for? What powers will the new Iraqi government have? What role will the US play in the new Iraq? Can elections be legitimate when ½ of the population can't vote? What if there is a boycott of the election? What is our exit strategy? Is this our model for future efforts to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation?"

• Experts predict a 50% turnout for voting in the January 30th election.
  
  
• 14 million people in Iraq are eligible to vote - another 1.2 million will vote in 14 countries including the US.

Assessing our current priorities provides a unique opening for us to consider the way things could be. In the next 15 years, the world is expected to face some remarkable changes; from a shifting balance of powers, to the pre-eminent economic power of nations like India and China, to growing "virtual" communities based on faith and economics rather than bordered "nation states."

Is our unilateral approach appropriate in this brave new world? What is the cost of our emphasis on military dominance, rather than connecting with the global community? What might a more cooperative, multilateral approach look like? Will we take the steps toward change? Could we improve our relationship with other peoples and nations by lending our international weight to improve the UN's effectiveness in the world? Would working with others lift the burden on the US to solve the world's problems? Will the American people have input into how we are represented in the world or will we choose to stay silent, complacent? Will we allow other peoples to define what liberty and prosperity will look like for themselves or will we impose our ideals?

Talking Points