Al From and his so-called "centrist" cohorts at the Democratic Leadership Council are now attempting to regain some stature within our party by attacking the liberal base where they perceive a weakness: on the issue of National Security and the War on Terror. However, the weakness here is in From and Company's perceptions, not grassroots Democratic Policy (as distinguished from official party policy/platform statements).
The real problem is that while there is a Democratic position on National Security in the post-9/11 environment, From and the DLC simply refuse to acknowledge it because of the consequences that actually accepting this position would entail. The Democratic position would call for moral and political boldness against the Republicans and their policies, whereas From and the DLC only want a "Republican-lite" position that shows "strength" so that they can "appear strong" in '06 and get elected.
Since the DLC is too stubborn and thick-headed to see what is as obvious as their own moral cowardice, I give them, in simple talking-point form, the Democratic position on the War and post-9/11 National Security:
1). There is no "War on Terror". However, there IS a War on Ideological/Religious Extremism. The difference is that the former goes after the effects, while the latter attempts to address the cause. This is the equivalent of cutting the grass vs. pulling the weed up by the root. Consider which is more effective in the long term.
2). The War on Ideological Extremism is not limited to Muslim terrorists, but any religious movement which seeks to achieve political ends through violence, terror, fear, and intimidation. This is not limited to "jihadist extremism", as the DLC contends, but includes domestic terrorists like Abortion Clinic Bombers... and people who threaten judges' (or other leaders') lives for not siding with their religion's views on topic X.
3). The War on Ideological Extremism calls upon us to oppose the Republicans to the extent that they have surrendered their party to the will of Ideological Extremists (of Christian, rather than Muslim, persuasion). As this is most cases, then they should be opposed most of the time and on most issues. There should be no appeasement for Ideological Extremists, even when those extremists are Republicans and fellow Americans. You hear that, Al From and Joe Lieberman? NO APPEASEMENT. And you wish to cast OUR position as weakness??? Puh-Leeze.
4). The War on Ideological Extremism did not require that we invade Iraq. That war in particular was not launched with due process, has been deemed a violation of international law, the threat to the United States was overstated, and the bases for the invasion have been proven false. Therefore, the Iraq conflict is WHOLLY unjustified and UNJUST. Read the oh-so-religious St. Augustine for some "Just War" theory, if you have questions about the ancient and morally-principled basis for this position.
5). The War on Ideological Extremism demands that we confront the Saudis and others like them who support religious extremism through religious schools or other terrorist training/support. Sure we get our oil from them, but that just means that we should work to decrease our financial and petroleum dependency on the Saudis (and others), so that any confrontation isn't too damaging to the American economy. We should be working toward an eventual confrontation in any case. And in the meantime, we certainly should not call them our ally. This also by chance displays how a decent (environmentally conscious) renewable energy policy is essential to our national security.
6). The War on Ideological Extremism should make demands for religious freedom and liberty throughout the world, including in Muslim areas. Achieving this principle requires secular government rather than sectarian ideology. Indeed, in this current conflict, the question of religious freedom and liberty is the essential, basic principle at stake. Where one stands on this issue is determinative as to which side of this war one is on, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the only tenable, principled position for Democrats to take is on the side of religious freedom, whether that is in the case of Terri Schiavo, abortion, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or Taliban-like regimes in the Middle East that support/sponsor terrorism. All of these issues are united in the Democratic version of the "War on Terror". Republicans like to run on the War on Terror, but the Democrats should run against ideological extremism and point out the numerous expressions of this displayed by the Taliban Wing of the Republican Party. This is essentially a position that would, over the long term, make the Republican Religious-Right base, as well as any religious orthodoxy, "radioactive" for political use. And this is good for the future of America and American democracy (as opposed to theocracy).If the DLC truly wants us to, as it suggests (see article linked below), "recapture the muscular progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and convince voters that national security is our first priority," then defending the religious liberty rights of Americans (and ALL peoples) would be a good place to start.
7). We are not anti-war as a policy, but rather believe that all war must be JUSTIFIED. This war is ONLY justifiable on the basis of defending (in this case religious) liberty at home and abroad. Until 9/11, we were only concerned with protecting our own religious liberty. After 9/11, the religious liberty of the world became an essential element to our future security. We should act accordingly.
The Democratic line in the current conflict is roughly sketched out above, as gleaned and boiled down from a gazillion posts I have read on the topic. As a result of this discussion, one begins to see the essential hypocrisy of the Republican position, as the Democratic position illuminates the basic conflict and interrelatedness of the REAL war in other, more mundane non-war subjects (Schiavo life and death decisions, abortion, gays, ten commandments). It also displays the dynamics at work in the current "Culture War" that the Right is always going on about. It also gives one a big-picture view of the monumental task at hand, as well as gives us a much better idea of how we as Democrats and as Americans should act in response to it. And this is essentially what Al From and Company are incapable accepting and acting upon. And that doesn't just make them bullheaded, it also makes them moral and political cowards.
From and the DLC have clearly chosen their side in this war (the Dark Side-lite position), and it isn't in concert with the above-stated principles. Thus, with their new statement they have at essence declared themselves traitors to their party and American values and have forwarded an "appease the enemy" position on National Security. So, now who is stronger on National Security? We principled liberals, or the so-called "National Security Democrats," who by their acts show that they are afraid of our true (and more comprehensive) position?
The article to which this piece is written in response can be viewed here.