In the <a href="http://www.newsday.com">Newsday</a> today, <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpmah032396772oct03.story?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines">another pair of authors</a> try to point out that all of this "tough talk" from the U.S. is not helping our actual national security. <span class="quote"><q>...what we really mean by "national security." Do we choose the meaning it has had for 56 years - essentially domination and protection of the U.S. right to have its finger in every pie? Or do we mean the physical safety of the American people in their own country?</q></span> What if we tried to change the basic feeling towards America in those regions by spending our money not on war, but on aid? After all, if we can <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html%3Cbr%3E">give them $43 million</a> for being anti-drug, can't we give them that much for food? <span class="quote"><q>In Afghanistan nothing could shake the power of bin Laden or the Taliban more than a dramatically expanded - and non-politicized - offer to feed the people and help them rebuild their war-torn country.</q></span>