This brings Jensen to his next point: supporting the troops. He very blatantly opposes the troops in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars claiming that he " will continue to do so when I believe they are engaged in immoral, illegal, and unwise conflicts " (23). To Jensen supporting the troops means supporting the war, and this war is not something he supports. People blindly interpret supporting the troops as defending America's freedom yet the only war since 1812 though that comes even sort of close to actually threatening the safety of America's freedom is World War II, but even that's argumentative. So if America's freedom isn't in jeopardy then was war really the answer to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? .
After 9/11 Jensen and Rahul Mahajan wrote an essay proposing two separate paths the United States could take on how to respond to the attacks. The first path is a vigorous law enforcement response, and the second is a change in the U.S. foreign policy. Changing the U.S. foreign policy to lower the risk of future terrorist attacks is not to be confused with "giving into terrorists ". I believe that war should be something countries resort to as a last option therefore the second path proposed by Jensen and Mahajan seems to be the most logical solution to 9/11, to me. If the America Government wasn't so concerned with being the best country in terms of power and more concerned with international peace and welfare than we could have avoided war and everything it comes with. Considering that America is the most powerful military country in the world and Iraq is a weak Third World country it is even more illogical that America would go to war with them. The American government has every right to feel threatened by the attack, but fighting back was not the only available solution. .
Jensen is very critical of the term patriotism. He claims how patriotism cannot be defined as a feeling. People can love other people or things or places, but love or loyalty towards a country makes no sense.