Are we safer? That is the question pundits are sure to ask of Pentagon officials and presidential candidates at the end of every interview. Change the channel, put down the paper or turn the page of your magazine because their answer is worthless.

Our soldiers certainly aren't safer than they were three years ago. Are we willing to sacrifice the safety of our peers in uniform for our own? We will probably never be as safe as we like if we are unwilling to sacrifice their safety.

In what ways are we safer? We might be less likely to see massively coordinated attacks from the air, but we may see massively coordinated attacks from the Internet. Are our ports and power plants safer? Where do I need to go to be safer than I was three years ago?

Current policy may or may not make us safer today, but will it make us safer 10 years from now? Would we be willing to sacrifice today's safety for tomorrow's?

"War is upon you whether you would choose it or not," is what Viggo Mortensen in Lord of the Rings would say to us. Terrorism has reached our shores. We fight an enemy with no borders, no clear leader and no one with whom to negotiate a cease-fire. So instead we are asked to dictate the strategy by which the war is waged.

Our answer testifies about our deepest beliefs. Our answer divulges our beliefs about a sovereign nation's rights; it manifests our feelings about human rights intervention, and proclaims our faith in democracy. It shows how we believe democracy should propagate, if at all, and whether or not it can cure the pernicious spirit that causes terrorism.

Most importantly, it confesses how we believe soldiers' lives should be sacrificed. We do not choose what men will die, but that men will die is a certainty. What safety will their deaths yield?

That is why our nation is divided. That is why our world's international community is torn. Even individuals are plunged into incongruous thought. I worry. I supported, and continue to support, the war in Iraq for my own confused and convoluted humanitarian reasons. But what if I'm wrong? Those who disagree with conviction are merely belying their fears and balancing the costs of being wrong.

We are left with one final choice, President Bush or Sen. John Kerry (D – Mass.). The man who took us into action, and a man who has said that knowing what we know now he would still have gone to Iraq. The political system has failed the huge percentage of the population who so vehemently opposed Bush on this issue. They are left with no choice. Their deeply held convictions about war and peace are left adrift with the Ralph Nader campaign

And so we choose.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.