Policy makers who have never served in the military continue to

Opening Scene
The soft glow of the late afternoon sun spills across the room, casting gentle shadows on the walls. Jeeny sits at the edge of the table, her fingers tracing the edge of a notebook, her expression distant as she reflects on the words of Jim Mattis. Jack, leaning against the window, watches the scene outside, lost in thought, but clearly processing the same thought that hangs in the air — the complex relationship between policy, military service, and social change.

Host: The quiet whirring of the fan and the faint noise of the city beyond barely reach them. The tension between Jeeny and Jack is subtle, like a conversation that’s waiting to unfold. Jeeny finally breaks the silence, her voice soft but heavy with the weight of the quote from Mattis.

Jeeny:
(softly, almost to herself)
“You know, Jim Mattis said something that really stuck with me. He mentioned how policy makers, people who have never served in the military, continue to use the military as a tool to lead social change in the country. It’s such a loaded statement, don’t you think? The idea that military forces — meant for defense, meant for protection — are often called on to push forward social agendas.”

Jack:
(turning to face her, his voice reflective)
“Yeah, it’s a tough concept. The military is about service and defense, but when it’s used as a tool for broader political or social change, it can feel like we’re asking soldiers to carry a burden they didn’t sign up for. It’s like we’re turning them into instruments for solving problems that require civil discourse, not military action.”

Host: The air feels thick now, as the complexity of their discussion starts to unravel. Jeeny looks out the window, her gaze shifting to the world outside, trying to find a connection between what’s happening in the world and the quote that has left a mark on both of them. Jack remains still, deep in thought, clearly grappling with the implications of using military forces for purposes far beyond their original intent.

Jeeny:
(softly, her voice filled with concern)
“I think what bothers me is the overlap — when military service becomes tied to political movements. It’s not that soldiers aren’t capable of leading in difficult situations, or that they don’t have valuable perspectives, but military power should be about defense, not about enacting social change. When we call on them to solve complex social issues, it feels like we're asking them to act as a substitute for real policy change and meaningful dialogue.”

Jack:
(nods, his voice steady)
“I see what you mean. It’s like we’re treating military service as a quick fix, as a way to sidestep the real work that needs to be done in politics. Military intervention, in any form, can shift the focus away from civil responsibility, from the true work of change, which should come from discussions, debates, and collective action. But we keep leaning on the military because it feels like an easy solution.”

Host: The room feels quieter now, as if the weight of their words has settled into something deeper, something that needs further exploration. Jeeny watches Jack, her eyes filled with the understanding that what Mattis said touches on something profound — how the military, once used for protection and defense, has increasingly been called upon to handle social issues that require nuanced solutions and collaboration. The true power of change, they both understand, lies not in military might but in unity, policy, and civil responsibility.

Jeeny:
(softly, with resolve)
“Maybe that’s the core issue — by using the military as a tool for social change, we’re bypassing the conversations that need to happen. We’re replacing civil discourse with military action, when the two should be separate. Social change requires understanding, compromise, and dialogue, not just military might. And the more we rely on the military, the further we move away from addressing the real issues at hand.”

Jack:
(quietly, his gaze softening)
“Exactly. It’s about balance. The military should be there for defense, for protection — not as the first line of action when we’re faced with difficult political or social challenges. It’s not the military’s job to shape the country’s social structure — it’s the job of policy makers, leaders, and citizens to work together on that.”

Host: There’s a shift in the air, a quiet sense of clarity settling between them. The light from the window softens, casting long, gentle shadows across the room. Jeeny and Jack sit together in the realization that the military, while vital and important, should not be used as a crutch for addressing complex social issues. The true work of social change lies in collaborative efforts, in engaging with the people and the policies that can bring about meaningful, lasting transformation.

Jeeny:
(gently, with a newfound clarity)
“We need to find ways to address social issues without using the military as a substitute for real, meaningful progress. We need to make space for dialogue, for collaboration, and for real civil change.”

Jack:
(nods with a quiet understanding)
“Yeah. It’s about stepping up to the challenge in a way that respects the true purpose of our military while also honoring the work that needs to be done through policy and dialogue.”

Host: As the evening settles, Jeeny and Jack sit in a quiet space of understanding. The weight of their conversation has shifted from frustration and confusion to clarity — that social change cannot and should not be solely dependent on military action. The path forward is through collaboration, policy, and civil discourse, not through the strength of military might. The room is still, the city outside fading into twilight, but inside, there’s a new sense of hope — a reminder that lasting change requires patience, communication, and the commitment of every citizen.