Both presidential candidates agree that we're fighting a war on terror. The main difference in their policies seems to be one of inclusiveness. Sen. Kerry has stated that he wants to strengthen relations with other nations as part of the war. The Prez has put forth a notion of an American-dominated (or sometimes even an American-only) war on terror, thus making this very real conflict "us against them."

For the Prez, "us" generally means Americans, and Americans only (and, perhaps, only those Americans who agree with him, though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there) and "them," at times, seems to mean just about everyone else in the world.

But some of our newfound "enemies" (such as France and Germany) have been fighting terrorists for decades. In particular, France has been fighting Algerian terrorists who have employed much the same methods and rationale as Al Qaeda. And, while you won't catch a good Republican admitting it, the Patriot Act is largely based on French laws designed to combat terror.

These draconian laws worked--mostly--for the French. But an aggressive, militaristic approach to fighting terror hasn't always succeeded. Look at the events last week in Russia. The scene of hundreds of dead hostages--killed either by their "saviors" or their captors, no one can be sure which--is eerily similar to the one outside the Moscow theater last winter where too much sleeping gas administered by supposed "saviors" killed dozens of hostages. And you don't have to look any further than the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see that those with better weaponry aren't always able to defeat terror.

We attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. I think that there are few Americans who disagreed with that action in the abstract, though many have--in my mind, correctly--criticized the planning and implementation of that operation. But what we ended up accomplishing in Afghanistan was the creation of an "open" country run by warlords. Osama Bin Laden, the real target of our attack, likely survived our assault and, if so, is operating with relative freedom somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Poppy production (which translates into heroin production) has blossomed since the overthrow of the Taliban. Hamid Karzai, by all accounts a man earnest in his desire for a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan, is a president in name only. His forces don't even control all of Kabul, the capital.

The situation in Afghanistan hasn't gone downhill much since we attacked Iraq; it was bad before we dropped the first bombs on Baghdad. Someone with a little foresight might have stopped for a moment and asked, "What are we going to do differently in Iraq?" (I'll skip the whole preemptive war element; that's another issue entirely) But that didn't happen, we didn't make any plans for possible setbacks and we're right where we were in Afghanistan. In fact, we've "pulled out" of Iraq just as we "pulled out" of Afghanistan.

Except that we keep calling up more reserves in order to send more troops to both countries, and more soldiers keep dying in both countries. These conflicts are beginning to look more and more like the unnamed, almost abstract, eternal "war in the east" of 1984. Most newspapers and media outlets seem to have bought the "we aren't there any more" argument and simply aren't giving these conflicts much coverage. But we're still paying for these wars, in both money and lives.

At some point, we might stop to think about the cost of this exclusively militaristic approach to fighting terror. I'm not saying we should cave in to terrorists's demands, specific or vague--that accomplishes very little. But we ought to project a more benign picture of ourselves and our nation internationally. The Peace Corps was not intended as simply a way to educate Americans about the world, but to educate the world about Americans. This sort of outreach is becoming more and more important as the decidedly skewed picture presented by American media and corporations becomes more and more a global presence. We might start by being a bit less preachy and demanding in our international stances. We've always cut dictators and theocracies breaks if we felt they were useful to us. Perhaps we ought to cut others breaks even if they aren't useful to us. It's a tricky line; we don't want to provide more cover for those who truly do mean us harm. But I think more people everywhere would be less likely to take up arms against us if we didn't act like we wanted to control the world.

And even if there are those around the Prez who think it would be a good idea for America to control the world, we can't. Not through military means. Wars are good for settling scores between states. At least, they can be somewhat useful that way, if not good. But the only way to truly dominate the world is to get people to subscribe freely to your beliefs. Conversions at gunpoint are always suspect. True belief comes from a change of heart inspired by illumination and contemplation.

In other words, one "Baywatch" episode is worth a thousand cruise missiles. That's just the sort of new math we need to be teaching our leaders.

Jon Worley has never watched an episode of "Baywatch," which may be why he has never been tempted to become a terrorist.