The most important issue in the next presidential election will be how to deal with our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq, from President Bush’s justification for war, our invasion and overthrow of the government to the aftermath of violence in our efforts to establish security and democracy in the country, have been examined and debated around the world. Our invasion of Afghanistan, part of the global war on terror, has fundamentally redefined our definition of war.

Whether or not we maintain a presence in either or both countries, there is a larger question that needs to be answered by anyone wanting to be the next president: Under what circumstances should the U.S. be willing to use military force? To put it more simply, when diplomacy, sanctions and embargoes have failed, when is it OK to go to war?

Defining this aspect of our foreign policy, how and why we decide to use the military, will be a reflection on the collective values of our nation. The war on terror, including defending ourselves against al-Qaida, has raised so many questions about our image around the world. How do we defend ourselves against an enemy unafraid to die, unafraid to challenge the most powerful nation on Earth in its religious/ideological crusade? What is the allure of al-Qaida that continues to grow its franchise of destruction? And what is it about America, our values and our way of life, that fuels such rage and hatred? As the world’s remaining superpower, it is all too easy to cross the line from being the world’s policeman to being the world’s biggest bully.

The primary reason given for invading Iraq was because it had weapons of mass destruction, was in violation of the United Nations and would not allow U.N. inspectors into the country. However, the U.N. did not authorize military force, nor did Iraq pose an immediate threat to the U.S. The threat identified was the continued spread of nuclear weapons. This threat continues in Iran and to a greater extent in North Korea. However, we continue to use diplomatic means to resolve these issues.

There is a fundamental paradox that the world’s greatest military power has a decided distaste for war. The moral ambiguity of war and loss of life sit uncomfortably with Americans wanting to believe we are the good guys. The first Gulf War was based on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, but the justifiable argument against our involvement was that our interest was more about oil than defending an invaded people. This raises the question: Do we have the right to attack another country if our economic or political interests are at risk? We claim to be dedicated to spreading democracy around the world, yet we trade with China with little mention of their communist government. We took the high road several decades ago protesting South African apartheid with an economic embargo, but today we continue to purchase oil from notoriously corrupt Nigeria without a second thought. This suggests that we want to spread democracy as long as it does not conflict with our economic interests.

There are people around the world victimized by genocide or caught in the middle of civil wars, such as in Rwanda and Darfur, yet we have not taken military action in these countries. If we want to spread freedom and justice around the globe, why are we not helping those most in need? When does our inaction become a national sin of omission?

The future president will need to create a consistent foreign policy that reflects the values of the U.S. and must be able to communicate this policy effectively to Americans. In the era of globalization, the security of Americans is inextricably linked to the security of all people. It will require greater commitment and sacrifice from Americans to communicate to the world who we are, what we believe and when we are willing to defend our beliefs through force.

• Laura Hagler, a full-time working mother with two daughters, is among a select group of local residents rotating their columns in the Saturday Tracy Press.