Less than a month ago, I joined the Army National Guard. Why did I do it? Well, quite frankly, I felt like it was my patriotic duty to serve my country during this time of need. We have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all the troops stationed in other countries overseas – all while enlistment numbers continue to decline. The way I see it is, should another 9/11 happen, I want to be available to defend our way of life. I want our country to be able to continue it’s military operations in the Middle East, while maintaining a strong defense at home.Many people have asked me how I feel about the prospect of being deployed overseas. They always think that I’m crazy for enlisting while troops are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve quickly begun to realize that the ones who think I’m crazy will never understand why I enlisted. They don’t feel what I feel for this country. I will never take for granted any of the freedoms we enjoy, which is why I am willing to fight to protect them. I know that hundreds of thousands of better men than me died so that I could write this article today. Some may think that statement is far fetched, but I don’t. I feel that it is my duty – every American’s duty – to ensure that those great men did not die in vain. I am honoring their memory by joining their ranks. I am in the process of becoming a soldier so that someday I will also be remembered as someone who protected some other American’s rights.

Some people have asked me what I think about the war. I think it is crucial that we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, until our job is done there. Those who wish to pull out immediately are totally wrong. If we were to pull out now, Iraq would be worse off than it was when we first went in. It is vital that we stay in Iraq to help develop their infrastructure, and newly formed government.

To say that I am an expert on foreign affairs, or even just on the war would be unreasonable. I have no formal training on foreign affairs, nor am I a military strategist. Hell, I’m a 23 year old accountant. I do know, however that the mainstream media does not report all that is going on in this war. There are terror cells in Iraq, which left unchecked will destroy all that we have worked for. There are still people in this world who want to destroy America and our way of life.

This is why we must stay. This is what we must fight against. This is why I joined.

• Where do They Stand on the Issues? Many of you out there may be confused about where...
• Post Election Whining It's been a week since the election, and we're already...

• I Fell Off But Got Back On Track Last week I fell off the path for a couple...
• Tips For Modern Site Optimizers Goggle dominating. What is it? Why people so often deal...

Ever since the War on Terror began, with our military forces being deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been many anti-war protestors claiming that war is not the answer, and that we could win this battle through diplomacy. It all sounds great actually. I mean our soldiers would have been kept out of harm’s way, and we could have gotten that nice warm and fuzzy feeling telling us that everything is going to be ok, because we talked things out with the bad guys.But I look at it differently. I see it as if it were a sporting event – hockey, for example. In hockey, you have two teams each with two types of players – defense and offense – both being equally important to the team’s success. Now everyone who has ever played, or even watched hockey (or any sport for that matter) knows the importance of the team’s offensive and defensive characteristics. Without a defense, you couldn’t expect to stop the opposing team’s offense from scoring, and without an offense, well the best you could hope for is a 0-0 tie.

So how does this relate to our national security? The way I see it, is if you take our military forces and use them strictly for defensive purposes, the best we can hope for is the ability to defend the country against every single terrorist attack. Going back to the hockey example, in this situation, all we would have done is tied if we successfully defended against all attacks. And each successful terrorist attack would be the equivalent of a goal scored.

On the other hand, if we were to split up our forces, into both a defensive force, and an offensive force, we could use the offensive force to eliminate a lot of the threats that our defensive forces would otherwise have to defend against. Thinking about the hockey example again, in this situation it would be like having the ability to keep the puck on the opponent’s end of the ice for the majority of the game, allowing the defense to worry only about the few loose pucks that manage to make their way to the other end of the ice.

In terms of national security, I would much rather eliminate known potential threats on our terms, rather than have to deal with them at a moment’s notice when they decide they want to strike. And the fewer potential threats there are, the safer we will be.

So the next time you hear someone moaning about how Bush needlessly rushed off to war, ask them if they’d like to play some 1-on-1 hockey. They’ll be the defense, and you can play offense. And please, if anyone actually does this, post your scores here.

• Learn From Your Dog Have you ever seen a dog's reaction when it feels...
• Give me Liberty, or I’ll Shoot! A few months ago I was having a conversation with...

• 2009 Offense Preview What To Know: With Harvin and Murphy gone, the offense...
• 5 Winning Keys to Lobbing, pt 1 1.  Lob with a Purpose – there are two main...

Have you ever seen a dog’s reaction when it feels threatened? It’s fur stands up straight, and it’s muscles tense up. It starts to show it’s teeth and growl at whatever it’s afraid of. Then the dog has a decision to make. It can either back away from whatever is threatening it, or it can attack it.I had a dog that died last September. He was an English Bulldog, who was lazier than any other dog I have ever met. He’d seriously get tired from eating, that’s how bad he was. But the one thing that he always found energy for was reacting to things that he felt threatened by. One thing in particular that always spooked him was the vacuum cleaner. As soon as it would come out of the closet, no matter what he was doing (even if he was sleeping), he would get up and bark ferociously at the vacuum. On the rare occasion he would run away from it, and other times he would attack it (and by no means was this a vicious dog). But his response wasn’t surprising. It seems only natural that if a dog (or anyone for that matter) is threatened, it will react to the situation as it sees fit.

So what am I getting at? Well the point I’m trying to make is that the basic instinct that my dog had – that any dog has – is an instinct of survival. One of the first things any species of animal learns, not just dogs is how to ensure their survival. This is an instinct that gets passed on to future generations to help the species evolve.

On September 11th, Al Qaeda attacked American soil, threatening not only the citizens of New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania, but all citizens of the United States and the rest of the free world. Millions of years ago President Bush had an ancestor who learned how to identify and react to threats. Today, evolution has given us a leader who is willing to stand up and defend the country that he has been put in charge of. As the “King of the Jungle”, President Bush declared to the world that if you are a country that harbors or aids terrorists, you will be treated as an enemy. As far as I can tell, the war on terrorism began as an instinctive reaction to an immediate threat to the United States. In essence, what President Bush did is analogous to my dog when he barked at the vacuum. He announced his intention to attack any and all threats to the United States unless they surrendered. When they did not surrender, President Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly toppling the terror-aiding governments. In my eyes, if President Bush did anything less given the circumstances, I would have been upset with his actions (or lack thereof).

To give you another analogy, imagine you and I are facing each other, having a conversation, when suddenly I yell to you that someone is about to whack you over the head with a bat. Even if there really wasn’t someone there, if you were to do anything other than turn around and attempt to defend yourself, I would have to wonder how your family survived millions of years of evolution. The threat in this case was identified before it struck. It only seems natural that you would react to that threat.

Just think about what would have happened if President Bush didn’t respond to the threats in Afghanistan and Iraq that faced this nation. Well actually you don’t have to think too hard about it, because President Clinton failed to adequately react to the first WTC attack back in the ’90s. The end result of that was a future terrorist attack on our military and citizens. Since President Bush reacted, our country is a safer place. Need proof? Just ask yourself, how many more acts of terror have there been on American soil since 9/11?

• John Kerry Supports Mandatory Service in the Military The best thing about the internet is it allows the...
• Cindy Sheehan: Go Home! Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq. Naturally I feel...

• How to Handle Dogs While You're Cycling [/caption]Sometimes, even though you've read all you can about cycling,...
• What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell Reviewed I often tell people that I've probably finished 5 books...