A couple of weeks ago I had a conversation with a liberal woman. I was surprised when she touted the virtues of those serving in our great military, and followed up with her opinion that since World War II we have never used our military to defend the United States. She thought it was a waste to send our young men and women into battle for no reason, and for them to get injured or killed was unjust.

I asked her what she thought about England's appeasement position by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to avoid war with Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939. She said that was completely different than what has happened since the end of World War II. At that point I knew it was unproductive to continue talking about the politics of national security. I wonder if she considered the rhetoric of USSR Premier Nikita Khrushchev's "We Will Bury You" comment in 1956 as he pounded his shoe on the table, or President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 comment that "Israel should be wiped off the map," or North Korea's Kim Jung Un's recent threats to fire missiles toward the U.S. Sounds provocative to me.

She asked what kind of country I wanted. I told her I wanted a Democratic Republic that provided opportunity for a good job where a high school graduate could expect to have a whole career, as opposed to outsourcing the job pool to foreign nations. Is it worth a global economy to sacrifice our lifestyle here in America?

She said the people in other countries deserve a better life and shipping jobs overseas was helping them achieve that. I asked her about the future for our youth and asked if she thought that was fair. Of course she supported her position that we had to share our wealth with the world. In a 2009 speech in France, the president said: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." So it looks like she concurs with the philosophy of the current administration.

Although she supports globalization, her position about the security of the United States seems flawed. In July last year at the 113th national meeting of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, the president addressed the meeting in a speech: "Thanks to the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, we're winding down a decade of war; we're destroying the terrorist network that attacked us; we're strengthening the alliances that extend our values. And today, every American can be proud that the United States is safer and stronger and more respected in the world."

Also in his speech he said, "So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world." Considering what the president said, it does look like America has enemies and is using our military to fight them. I wonder how this woman formed her opinion.

The statement about "the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform" sums up the patriotism and dedication of those serving today and us veterans. The credo of each branch of service defines the values and expectations for each person, and the synergy of the group supports the extraordinary service the president is talking about. Not only individually, but extending to family values as well. After all, they are our support network while we are slaying dragons, and they endure tours of duty right along with us. Keeping the home fires burning is key to the security of the United States. It gives promise that our mission is appreciated and important.

Jack Evensizer is a resident of Dalton Gardens.