The November Election: Three Weeks to Go and Counting

The Republican strategy in the remaining weeks before the election is becoming increasingly clear and based (surprise, surprise) on the Rovian tactic of turning "weaknesses to strengths"). In this case, the weakness is a failed policy in Iraq, which will be negated by the tried and true political tactic of fear-mongering. Democrats need to meet this challenge head-on and call it for what it is. It may be time for them to take a page from FDR, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

The Bush argument (notable not so much for its "newness," as its pre-election emphasis) is we are in Iraq because it is better to fight them there instead of here. In this way, he links Iraq to his War on Terror and the entire underpinnings of the neo-conservative ideology. The image this intentionally conjures is U.S. troops dying in the streets of Baghdad versus American civilians dying in the streets of the United States. It's, "yes, it is 'hard work' in Iraq, but a nuclear bomb on an American city would be worse."

Democrats need to confront this with six points:

1) Much of the recent increase in violence in Iraq has nothing to do with the United States. Rather, U.S. casualties are going up due to a shift in military tactics, which involves increasingly inserting ourselves between two warring factions (Sunnis and Shites) in an Iraqi civil war. This is a battle over who will control Iraq and both sides will use terrorist tactics, but it is not part of some world wide conspiracy to destroy the United States, other than in the sense that our presence and interference in this civil war may create additional enemies.

2) Definition of the enemy as "terror" - i.e. the War on Terror - is a misnomer. While no one can condone such tactics, it was not the IRA, Basque Separatists, Japanese fanatics, or even Ha mas or the Palestine Liberation Front who attacked us on 9/11. It was Al Qaeda and that is whom we should be "making war" against. True, we should condemn terrorism in any form, and cooperate internationally with anyone fighting against the use of such tactics, but it is total folly to think we can "make war against it." That is a war without end, the endless pursuit of perceived enemies, rather than proven criminals. The serious enemy, the enemy who has already declared war against us, the enemy responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Africa, our disaster in Somalia, the U.S. Cole attack, etc. is Al Qaeda.

3) The Bush Administration, by shifting the goal of our response from eliminating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack (Al Qaeda) to a global, ideological struggle between tyranny and democracy has largely increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the United States and created a confrontational international environment by means of a "War" wherein victory can be achieved only once all global tyranny is defeated. Certainly, the United States needs to encourage and support democratic efforts world-wide, but it is not within our national interest or our resources to "impose" democracies on others.

4) The proper response to 9/11 was to eliminate Al Qaeda and bring their leader, Osama Bin Laden, to justice. This should have been accomplished through a build-up of U.S. presence in Afghanistan, pressure on Pakistan and, defensively, more attention to homeland security - i.e. controlling our borders, greater oversight and screening of visa applicants, etc. Some of this, the Administration has accomplished. Tearing down the "walls" between our intelligence agencies, increased cooperation regarding the international movement of money, airport security, etc. were positive steps, but pale beside the magnitude of the threat - i.e. a nuclear suitcase bomb. Pursuit of some messianic goal of world democracy, from Iraq to North Korea is a diversion of resources.

5) The world needs to know that if attacked, the United States will bring the attackers to justice, whereever they are, how ever long it takes and that, if necessary, we will mobilize our entire country to accomplish that goal. It will not be "business as usual." To deflect that message into a political debate over the extent of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, border controls, the future of the United States in the process of globalization, our role in the Middle East, or the end of a bi-partisan foreign policy is a disservice both to the people and security of the country...and the memory of thise who died in the 9/11 attack.

6) In a secular state, founded on the basis of a separation between state and religion and in the vein of "render all things that are Caeser's unto Caeser and all things that are God's to God," the President needs to be reminded that his first responsibility is NOT to God, but to the people of the United States. If we believe otherwise, we will have ceased to be a democracy. Indeed, I see little difference between a foreign policy based on a religious view that "God meant everyone to be free," from one that suggests "God did not mean everyone to be free." This is not a religious war, it is (or should be) a war against those who made war on us.

In sum, Roosevelt was right...the only thing this country has to fear is fear itself and Democrats need to remind voters that deflecting attention away from failed policies on the basis of fear will no longer work.