COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – If America’s key asymmetric advantage is its people, as U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted during a national conference recently, then why are we waiting to engage everyone in a serious, public debate on how best to maximize the application of this nation’s strengths against the weaknesses of its current and potential opponents?

Of course, Gates – who was addressing top specialists on the military, along with commentators, at a program sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, the El Pomar Foundation and Military Reporters & Editors – was referring to U.S. men and women in uniform. He said that getting the present right when it comes to the care of our service people would “go a long way towards making sure we have the kind of force we need in the future.”

I have built on the notion, though, because the American people as a whole possess a similar asymmetric advantage, which they have demonstrated with innovativeness, courage and distinction during previous crises in U.S. history, from hot conflicts to the Cold War.

Unfortunately, the American tendency, from the leadership level on down, too often is to react to global challenges, rather than to confront them in a proactive manner before they reach the level of crises. Consider, for example, the emergence of the current wave of terrorism in the late 1970s.

That threat expanded as the Cold War ended, and the artificial constraints imposed by the United States and the former Soviet Union fell away.

My belief has always been that we should have mounted a comprehensive “war” against terrorism as soon as the problem became discernable, that is, a generation before Sept. 11, 2001.

The effort should have involved all forms of U.S. power – diplomatic, economic and military. If the United States had relentlessly tackled the roots of terrorism early on, it might have reduced the problem to a smaller, more manageable size and avoided the Sept. 11 attacks.

Today, in the face of a rapidly changing world that features continuing terrorism, failed or failing states, developments such as climate change and pandemics that have serious security ramifications, the rise of new centers of influence, an intensifying competition for scarce resources and other disruptive phenomena, the United States – as the world’s sole superpower – has a responsibility to stake out a clear sense of direction. America must strive to define the threats that could emerge, develop a strategy and muster appropriate resources.

In addition to the military services, that discussion – which must aim for nothing less than a bipartisan consensus on a national strategy – should include:

“Political leaders, especially those who seek the U.S. presidency; there is no better place than the current campaign for a substantive debate on the issue.

“Think tanks such as RAND Corp. ( www.rand.org); the Brookings Institution ( www.brookings.edu); The Heritage Foundation ( www.heritage.org); American Security Project ( www.americansecurityproject.org); and the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( www.csis.org).

“Universities, especially those that have developed emphases in the area of security studies.

“The American people, who should deepen their understanding of these matters so that they may shape the national conversation in an informed manner.

Of course, one of my main objectives through this column is to reach the last category. Thus, I invite readers to review and comment on the ideas coming out of think tanks, such as American Security Project’s “A Budget for a New American Arsenal” and Heritage’s “Providing for the Common Defense,” as well as other sources. Send your thoughts to me at johncbersia@msn.com, and I will summarize them in a future column.