This is an article from a security expert at TPMCafe. It notes the significant ways in which Edwards breaks from the conventional wisdom on security issues and is different from his chief rivals, Clinton and Obama.
In a May 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards described the GWOT as a "political doctrine" that has been used "like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his [Bush's] administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq." Later in the same remarks, he described it as "a bumper sticker, not a plan." Edwards took some criticism at the time of the speech, but he happens to be right on this important point.
At first blush this would seem to be a minor thing but it took a lot of courage for Edwards to do. This deserve particular note because Edwards' detractors love to paint him as a poll-driven opportunist. His courageous stand on this issue, as well as his leadership on ending the war when the strategy he advocates to achieve an end to the war is not politically popular (why do you think most Democrats and the other candidates, aside from Dodd and Kucinich have not advocated the same?) obliterate that meme.
Edwards has been attacked, particularly in the right-wing propaganda machine, for not understanding the threat of terrorism in light of his "bumper sticker" comment. That is a myth. Edwards is not a corporate media darling so it is up to his supporters to spread his message and the facts at the grassroots level. For the details as to Edwards' position on terrorism, which he understands is a serious threat see Sept. speech called "A New Strategy Against Terrorism", May speech at the CFR, and Edwards' article in Foreign Affairs in which he elaborates on his foreign policy vision.
These are relatively lengthy materials and a good one paragraph summary of his new strategy is this, from the article that this diary is about:
Finally, Edwards has made a concrete proposal for how to re-balance U.S. security spending so that non-military tools like law enforcement, diplomacy, intelligence, energy policy and foreign assistance get their fair share of funding. He suggests the creation of a "National Security Budget" that would include not only spending on the Pentagon, but also on the Department of Energy, the State Department, and other foreign affairs agencies. This would allow for more informed tradeoffs among the various security instruments. As Edwards has noted, "We have one agency on steroids -- the Pentagon -- while the civilian agencies are on life support."
This is vital. Change can't just be a slogan. You have to offer specific prescriptions for achieving change. There are many reasons why I believe John Edwards is our most electable candidate. One of them is that he is the only candidate who has articulated a comprehensive anti-terror strategy. We will be at a huge disadvantage in the general election if our nominee lacks such a strategy. We know the Republicans are going to play the terror card next year because it is the only card they have left to play. We should be prepared for it; Edwards is.
Imagine a debate between Edwards and Giuliani. Edwards will be advocating a new, smart approach that will be effective while Giuliani will be calling for four more years of Bush's failed anti-terror policies. Edwards would easily win that debate and would negate the Republican advantage, in the public psyche, on terrorism and national security.
To his credit, Edwards has also refused to get into a "bidding war" over who can propose larger troop increases for the U.S. military, noting that "the numbers approach only gets us into the same problem as the president's approach" unless there is a clear idea of "what the troops will actually be used for." This common sense position doesn't automatically mean that Edwards would not increase the size of the Army and the Marines if elected, but at least he hasn't locked himself into that position in advance, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done.
This helps illustrate that Edwards will be a responsible leader who will analyze all the data before reaching a decision--a stark change from the current occupant of the White House! It is a mistake to get into a bidding war on this because of the financial resources it will take to expand the number of troops in the military. Other candidates have tied their hands as they will have to carry out their arbitrary level of troop increase. Why? Because if they renege or slim the plan down they will be accused of being weak on security. This is significant because the money that will be used to keep an election year promise will inevitably divert money from other programs, whether immediately through direct cuts or in the future when we pay the price for the increase in the deficit caused by these arbitrary election year promises if the candidates advocating them, like Romney and Obama (both want 100,000 more troops) are elected.
The author closes the article with his disagreement with Edwards on Iran but we should remember all the major contenders have a similar position on Iran. His criticism of Edwards on Iran is not a default plus for Obama and Clinton.