Peace Corps or Multi-National Corps?

Yesterday's forum on service featuring the two presidential candidates was refreshing. It was a great way to honor those who were killed or injured in the 9/11 attacks. Both candidates did a great job of speaking from their heart about the virtue of service to the nation whether in the form of military service or community service. It was also inspirational to see these two particular candidates who each represent the ideals of service through personal example. As a bonus each of them represents a different yet important aspect of service, either military or community, that makes a difference for our country. Either way, that certainly fits with America First.

I will add some additional commentary addressing how these different aspects of service can be used to help us abroad in our struggle against extremism. However, I want to preface my remarks by simply saying that I don't want them to be viewed as critical of anyone or any institution, especially our military people who serve honorably and put their lives at risk everyday for the rest of us. As a veteran myself, I have always honored and respected the brave men and women who put on a uniform for their country. Like many other Americans who have served, I was always moved on occasions when I was in uniform and saluted the flag at ceremonies as the national anthem was played. So here are a few additional comments for the 9/11 service discussion.

What if the ideas expressed by these two candidates were carried out more fully? How could this help us with our problem of restoring America's image around the world? Both candidates were largely in agreement on much of what was discussed. This included support for expanding the Peace Corps. Perhaps now more than even in the 1960's we need to leverage the good work that Peace Corps volunteers do around the world. This could help America's image very significantly for a modest investment.

If we look at the positive results achieved by the US military when they provided relief aid to victims in Indonesia when the tsunami struck the outlaw province of Aceh it was remarkable. In this province of the most populated Muslim country in the world, where rebels were actively fighting for control from the central government, the US military helped change things for the better. As the rebels changed their focus from fighting to survival, the US military was seen as a positive force for good. Today, even the CIA estimates that there is now more economic activity in this area than before the disaster in December of 2004. Significant progress has been made there with fewer incidents of violence. Although we also provided relief during the earthquake in Pakistan, perhaps we could have done more to help our reputation with additional disaster relief rather than giving $10 Billion in military assistance. Most of that aid was used to prepare their forces for a potential conflict with India over Kashmir rather than pursuing extremists. If we want to "win" the "War on Terror," then we have to "win" the hearts and minds of people around the world. This is a basic tenant of counterinsurgency doctrine that we seemed to have only rediscovered with the "surge" in Iraq.

What if we enlisted our NATO allies to provide volunteers for a Multi-National version of the Peace Corps? Could we be more effective in Afghanistan or even the tribal areas of Pakistan? What if we had a Muti-National relief force organized to respond to natural disasters around the world? What if, as the candidates have suggested, college assistance was provided for those who serve. We would be exposing the world to some of America's best and brightest in a positive way. This would replace the negative images some have of America for the misguided rendition and enhance interrogation programs. No amount of "PR" could be more effective than images of Americans and partners from our NATO Allies working together to help around the world. What if Americans who were trained as disaster volunteers at home were given opportunities to do "short tours" abroad in conjunction with our Allies? This could be a kind of "service sabbatical" and perhaps even sponsored by corporations or foundations. These are all potential great ideas and good investments for America.

In keeping with the spirit of the service discussion, I will simply say it was great to hear the candidates speak to the American public about concrete policies in a civil manner. The possibilities are great. I hope that whomever is elected president will follow through on their intentions to enhance the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and even use the military on more humanitarian missions that only they have the resources to bring in the case of severe disasters. This would really help put America First in the eyes of the world.