It's war. There is no other frame to use in what we're dealing with. It's unfortunate that Bush framed this as a war on terrorism, but he did, and liberals largely accepted it. Bush further solidified his hold on the war time frame by invading Iraq and turning a metaphor into reality. Trying to reframe this problem as one of crime and law and order, or rejecting those who call this a war of civilization against chaos, is a losing proposition.
You see, there is a liberal frame for war, one that we all recognize, and a fascist frame for war, one that is happening now. But rejecting this situation as war just makes you out of touch and vulnerable to a lack of legitimacy.
Example:
People who want to treat this as a "war" have no cocern for justice or interest in stopping terrorism.
The truth is, we have to treat terrorism as a crime if we want to end it. If we're really intent on stopping this thing, we'll do it through the agencies of international law. Improved data sharing. Harmonized laws on procedures, punishment, and evidence. And, by God, an International court and police force that's empowered to work across borders. We don't have to give up any of our rights as individuals, but we have to have the guts to surrender some of our rights as a nation.
If all we want to do is dress up and use all our cool military toys, then go for it -- but don't pretend it has anything to do with stopping terrorists.
It is this lack of seriousness on matters of national security that makes it impossible for Democrats to govern. The war against chaos really started with Kosovo, when we used all our 'toys' to stop a nightmarish genocide within a multilateral alliance. Railing against war as a framework implies a disavowal of successful uses of American military power, and like bread is to flour, you can't make a stable world without military power.
The fact is, we need to look at this conflict as a liberal war, with all that that implies. We need to fight chaos with structure, and rage with ideas. We need to fight violence with cooperation and intelligent applications of force, and armies of lunatics by burning down the terrorist schools that train them. We also need to pay for our war, with taxes and reduced usage of energy and natural resources.
This is how FDR fought World War II, and it's the right way to fight this war.
Without acknowledging that this is a fight, and a knock down drag out fight, you'll find situations like the reaction to Madrid, where liberals basically say nothing about a situation because they don't know how to frame it, and rightists use it to justify their repressive policies.
It's not that Bush is serious about national security. He's not. But he has a framework for dealing with the problem, one that people intuitively understand. Blow things up. Hurt people. Restrict freedoms. That makes sense. Absent an alternative, people will go for it. It's our job to provide that alternative, and alternatives do not include repairing the damage that Bush has done because that's not an alternative, it's just a palliative and a lack of framing of a critical issue.
We need to start thinking broader, grander, and talk about empowering the forces of civilization through free trade, conservation, cooperation, military force, and investment in a middle class infrastructure in the Middle East. We need to empower the global civil society with a safety net, and get rid of the incentives to be on the side of chaos. We can't callously watch a continent die and expect to have our SUVs tool.
Madrid is a wake-up call to the Spaniards, that cooperation with the US carries its costs. We need to prove to them now that it also carries its benefits. Without doing so, we'll never be able to win this war, even if we win an election or two.