This past week witnessed any amazing confluence of events. Two days after Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary, which has been widely heralded as proof that the Democrats are weak on national security, British authorities arrested more than twenty British Muslims who were set to carry out a terrorist plot similar in scale to 9/11. Without missing a beat, Lieberman immediately drew attention to these arrests in order to make the case that Lamont, who wants to pull out of Iraq, is a defeatist who will embolden the terrorists by displaying weakness. Top GOP leaders, including Rove and Cheney, have also reached out to Lieberman and a new GOP ad (which at first included a Hitler mustache painted onto Howard Dean) labels Democrats as "Defeat-ocrats".
The first lesson here is obvious: the Democrats had better get a strong and clear message on how they plan to combat terrorism because it is the defining issue of our age that is (unfortunately) not going to go away.
But the Democrats desperately need more than a list of initiatives that include increased money for homeland security and talk of building alliances. This simply will not suffice given the challenges we face. And on Iraq, saying that we should withdraw our troops without any discussion of the possible consequences, their repercussions, or potential future engagement is not only irresponsible, but will not be sufficient to convince the electorate that the Democrats are serious about national security.
So here are my thoughts on what the Democrats need to do:
1. Point out how the recent arrests in British do not validate the Bush foreign policy, but completely undermine it. The suspects are all British citizens (supposedly with links to Pakistan), who were prepared to deal a terrible blow with very simple weapons. They were likely further radicalized by what they perceive as the Western war on Islam, and while they very well may have tried to attack us irrespective of the Iraq War, the war has done nothing to diminish these types of threats. Most likely, they have increased the likelihood. What this episode should teach us is that the greatest risk of terrorism comes from cells within our borders and those being trained and inspired by radical extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. If anything, the Iraq War has given extremists additional fertile training ground, and provided extremists with more recruiting opportunities based on fiascos such as Abu Ghraib.
2. While it is appropriate to emphasize over and over again that the Iraq war was a terrible strategic mistake, which points to a dramatic failure of leadership, now that we have inherited this situation we have to be thoughtful about how to best minimize our losses and do our best to put in place the elements that have the greatest chance of producing a stable, friendly, and at least mildly-democratic regime. Democrats must acknowledge that if we are too quick to abandon Iraq, the situation could be become much worse and the threats of terrorism much greater. Timetables for withdrawal are the not the most sensible course; what is needed is a much clearer delineation of what constitutes "success" or "victory" and the incremental steps to achieve this. Americans don't want to see Iraq become the new Afghanistan pre-9/11 and neither do they want to "stay the course". The Democrats need to provide a third alternative.
3. As to a larger narrative, the Democrats must not shy away from describing the terrorist threat in the strongest terms, and emphasize their commitment to fighting terrorism head on. The case they should make is not they differ with the GOP as to the severity of the threat, but that they will combat it in much smarter ways. Whereas the Republicans and the Bush Administration want to lump all terrorists together into a "global war on terrorism", it is much better to focus on the regimes that currently harbor terrorists and to enhance our law enforcement capabilities so that we can continue to thwart the terrorist cells that represent the most direct threats. (For additional thoughts on the larger national security narrative see last week's post on a new foreign policy doctrine.)
4. On a procedural matter, it is essential to point out the upside-down priorities of the GOP, which thinks gay marriage or a flag burning amendment warrants more debate and discussion that domestic spying and accountability from our civilian and military leadership. The public needs to know that with Democrats in charge they will focus the government's energy on the key national security issues and not be distracted by culture war issues that are meant to divide the country and sap our energy.
5. Once the Democrats have established respectability on matters of national security, they can point out the irony that while we are fighting religious extremists abroad, the GOP is emboldening religious extremists at home. From the anti-gay agenda to banning federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research, the GOP is in bed with groups whose religious philosophy is oppressive, anti-modern, and bigoted.
Any Democrat who doesn't think long and hard about national security and move beyond anti-war sound bites does not deserve to win. The Democratic Party does the country a terrible disservice when it abdicates its responsibility to craft an effective strategy for national security that allows the failed and misguided GOP policies to remain unchecked and uncontested.
J.S.