Those who question President Bush’s strategies for dealing with terrorism since the horrific tragedies of Sept. 11 are sometimes accused of being unpatriotic. Yet the strength of democracy lies in respect for dissenting voices.

One of those voices is that of Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, Ret., who directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter and flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. After terrorists destroyed two embassies during the Clinton administration and President Clinton retaliated against suspected Osama Bin Laden training camps, Dr. Bowman wrote to the president and pointed to the futility of military responses to terrorism. “Not a penny of the $273 billion a year we spend on so-called defense can actually defend us against a terrorist bomb. Nothing in our enormous military establishment can actually give us one whit of security.”

At a talk given after Sept. 11 he says that in the long term, we must change our policies to stop causing the fear and hatred of the United States which create new terrorists.

Yet the policies being proposed by President Bush continue to focus on increased spending on the military and widening the “war on terrorism” to the “evil axis” of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. By defining security in narrow militaristic terms, the Bush administration has gotten almost everything it has requested, including a bloated military budget and obscene tax breaks for the wealthiest and least needy.

According to the National Priorities Project, spending on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense (Star Wars), which do not address the threat of terrorism we witnessed on Sept. 11, are costing taxpayers over $20 billion.

The National Priorities Project also points out that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent neither creates jobs, nor provides economic relief for low and middle- income people. By the time all tax cuts are phased in, the poorest 20 percent will only average tax cut benefits of $66, but the richest 1 percent will receive tax cuts totaling on average over $53,000 – more than what 60 percent of American households earn in a year.

Christopher St. John of the Maine Center for Economic Policy points out that these tax cuts fail to deliver real economic stimulus since upper income taxpayers are more likely to save then spend any tax benefits. It was recently suggested major spending of the richest 1 percent could well be on lobbying for those tax breaks.

The insecurity of Maine citizens around decent jobs and housing, affordable health care, adequate education, personal safety, sexism and racism and so many other concerns has not gone away. If anything these situations have worsened and such security needs are greater than ever. Christopher St. John cites Joseph Stiglitz, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel prize in Economics, who outlines an alternative stimulus package which includes extending benefits to the unemployed, more spending on health care, food stamps and other “safety net” programs and more federal support for Medicaid and education. But increased military spending and tax breaks for the wealthy threaten to eat up revenues needed for spending for such human needs.

Even many liberals in Congress are reluctant to oppose the President’s policies. They join the bandwagon claiming the Bush policy of the war on Afghanistan has been as a “success.” It is true the Taliban have been routed and women have been allowed to remove the Burqua, but has that war really made us more secure from future terrorist attacks? What has been the cost to the Afghan people?

Marc Herold, professor of economics at the University of New Hampshire, has surveyed press around the world and suggests that the civilian death toll in Afghanistan up to Dec. 10 could exceed 3,500. Many human rights organizations are calling for further investigations of the deaths of innocent civilians. According to the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have already died in the past decade because of economic sanctions. What will be the costs for the innocent civilians of Iraq, Iran or North Korea as we pursue this “war on terrorism”?

A common response to the questioning of current policies has been “But we’ve got to do something!”

Amber Amundson, the wife of Craig Amundson, who was killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon and who had a distinguished career in the U.S. Army, urges alternative nonviolent solutions be pursued. “If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband.”

Amundson’s sister-in-law, along with other family members of those killed on Sept. 11, traveled to Afghanistan to meet with the families of the victims of U.S. bombing to share in their common sorrow and urge the view that reconstruction, not revenge is needed. After Sept. 11, l00 Nobel laureates signed a statement proposing that “united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world” is what is needed for true global security. The Nobel laureates point out that “the most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world’s dispossessed.” Let’s speak out for real security that deals with the root causes of terrorism.

Questions about the “war on terrorism,” its impact on our communities and alternatives will be discussed at a Real Security Hearing from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, March 2, at the William S. Cohen School in Bangor. Candidates and the public are invited to hear testimony from more than l5 organizations in eastern Maine working for peace, justice and a sustainable environment.

Ilze Petersons is the program coordinator for the Peace and Justice Center of Eastern Maine.