Our planet -- it's a pretty neat place when you think of it. Space pioneers, who get to view it from a distance that the rest of us can only imagine, always report a sense of awe at the sight of our big blue marble spinning in space. Many of them have been struck by how, unlike the maps we've created, there are no borders visible from afar. It is just one beautiful, colorful world. Not a bad last perspective to carry through death's door, no matter what you believe is on the other side.

Now, if we could only replicate that view down here on the surface. What a wonderful legacy this would be for those who gave their lives to bring us this perspective of our universe and many others. Don't you think the time has come for the phrase "United we stand" to be projected on a bigger screen than the strange conglomerate of borders and boarders that make up the United States? What does it mean to be an American today? What did it ever mean? Isn't the story of America that we are a land of freedom, justice, democracy, welcome, diversity, human rights, and opportunity? What has happened to that story?

I know I'm not the only one who feels that the current American story being told is one of fear, loathing, suspicion, oppression, and domination. Now I find out that it all follows a master plan, a plan devised at the turn of the century, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," and it's all about taking advantage of how we're rated number one to achieve world domination. You can read all about it, and the group of neo-conservatives that devised the plan, if you haven't already, at www.newamericancentury.org/.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous quote -- that we have nothing to fear but fear itself -- has been replaced by the Bush administration's subliminal mantra, "Be afraid. Be very afraid." For me, this has been the most disturbing aspect of American life for the past year and a half. What kind of leadership, I wondered, adds to the dis-ease of the nation, instead of trying to calm it? Now I learn that this is all part of taking advantage of an "opportunity" (the events of September 11) to promote this agenda. It's all in the New Century document in black and white. Read it and weep. Or better yet, read it and get angry. Get very angry.

The authors from the Project for a New American Century have a very different idea about the potential for the 21st-century than I do. It's obvious that they have a very different perspective on the United State's global responsibility. It's time to make very clear who represents the neo-conservative America, which is just a replication of old-time imperialism with a democratic mask, and the Old America, which is the one that the founders of this great experiment had in mind.

It's even clear that the authors knew their plan might not be popular at the moment, but apparently not being popular (representing the people) isn't going to stand in their way. Father knows best. We should all just trust in their wisdom and bear the brunt of the cost (which they acknowledge) of their plan. If nothing else, we should know exactly what that cost will be, and just who will be paying it. Not just in terms of financial investment, but in human terms as well. We lost 58,000 Americans in Vietnam, but, according to some estimates, almost three times as many Vietnam veterans committed suicide after returning home. It's hard to know how many have committed homicide, but the involvement of veterans seems to be a recurring theme in high-profile murders.

Recently, I got an e-mail from one of the veteran organizers of www.veteransforcommonsense.org. It said, "Twelve years ago, in February of 1991, I crossed the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq with the 24th Infantry Division. Back then I was a 20-year-old Abrams tank crewman, and I fought in several battles in southern Iraq. I can say from personal experience, the media got it wrong. The first Gulf War wasn't clean, it wasn't pretty, and it wasn't precise. In the chaos and destruction of battle, anything can happen. We killed a lot of people."

We're spending a lot of time looking for any proof that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, we're not sure we want to live up to our agreement to reduce our own supply to 3500 by 2007. In 1997, we owned 12,000 nuclear warheads. I've read that the usefulness of nuclear weapons is to create uncertainty in the mind of a potential aggressor and ensure that aggression is not a rational option. How many do we need to achieve that end? Can we blame others for wanting to use the same tactic? If war is hell, what is all-out war without end?

So what's an American to do? Now that the plan for the New American Century is out there for all to see, there are a couple of ways to go. If -- as many believe -- there's no stopping the proponents of this plan, then don't ask me, or anyone else who has a different vision of America's role in this century, to pay for it. Let those who share this vision, and those who will benefit from it, pay for this plan.

Last year, in a letter sent to the IRS with my tax payment, I asked that my money be used only for those government services and programs which help to build societies and communities, not those which destroy them. I wrote, "I am a conscientious objector to war, and cannot condone nor support military services or weaponry other than peacekeeping forces. I do not feel one iota more secure against terror as a result of this administration's response since September 11. In fact, I feel we have been put at greater risk, and have lost precious civil rights in the process. Also, as a woman, I feel my values are being grossly underrepresented in governmental decisions. My next step, if these desires are not met, will be to state, 'No taxation without representation,' as this great nation's first patriots did in similar circumstances."

In her book Three Guineas, British author Virginia Woolf wrote, "Therefore if you insist upon fighting to protect me, or 'our country,' let it be understood, soberly and rationally between us, that you are fighting to gratify a sex instinct which I cannot share; to procure benefits which I have not shared and probably will not share; but not to gratify my instincts or to protect myself or my country. For . . . in fact, as a woman, I have no country." Although much has improved for women since Woolf's time -- at least for some women in the world -- I share much of her sentiment about war.

Do you feel safer from terrorism than you did a year ago? Do you have a clear idea of why "they" hate us? Do you think our current direction will make you and your family more secure? Is world domination one of your priorities for our country? Are you prepared for reinstitution of the draft, perhaps one that includes women? Do you expect the media to get it right this time, and provide accurate information about the consequences if we go to war?

If any of your answers are no, and you disagree with the short-term plan to attack Iraq and the long-term plan for world domination, then it's your duty as a citizen of this country to do something. For some, it's contacting elected representatives or writing letters to the editor. Others have joined rallies, marches, discussion groups, and movements for a saner, more inclusive plan for the future of our nation and our world. Some are using the Internet in new and creative ways. Some use prayer or humor. Still others are using art, theater, and poetry. I think the key is to just connect, keeping in mind the values at the core of this nation of ours, and what our world looks like from a distance.

Pam Steager can be reached at pjsteager@earthlink.net.

Issue Date: February 14 - 20, 2003