In an article called Why Americans Oppose the Iraq War, Steven M. Warshawsky shows just how easy it is to do something that has long eluded the Democrats– argue against the war in Iraq without appearing weak in the war on terrorism:

Once again, President Bush has defined “victory” in the war on terror as requiring, above all else, the transformation of Iraq into a “free nation” that is a “strong ally” against Muslim extremism.

Even if the President’s vision of a free, democratic Iraq were something more than a quixotic fantasy – and a growing number of Americans (myself included) do not think it is – is it true that “the war on terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq”?  Is it true that “the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad”?  

Why does the President continue to define the war in these self-defeating terms?  What about regime change in Iran and Syria?  What about preventing Iran and other terror-sponsoring states from obtaining WMDs?  What about hunting down and destroying known terror groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas?  These were the major elements of the original Bush Doctrine, which the American people wholeheartedly supported. 

Most importantly, these goals are achievable, as we saw in the two years following 9/11.

In his Atlanta speech, President Bush instead emphasized his grandiose strategy of “leading the cause of freedom” in the Middle East and thereby “chang[ing] the conditions that give rise to radicalism and hatred and terror.”  According to the President, we will “replace violent dictatorships with peaceful democracies.” 

However, unless the United States is prepared to overthrow all of the governments in the region by force and then occupy their countries long into the future – which President Bush has no intention of doing and the American people would never support – the President’s words amount to little more than meaningless noise. 

This is truly unfortunate because the war on terror is the central issue of our time.  The original Bush Doctrine offered a concrete approach to protecting the American people.  President Bush’s current Iraq-based strategy threatens to undo everything he has accomplished.

This effective critique comes not from a Democrat but from an intellectual conservative and Republican.  Though I’m sure we would disagree on many points, I respect Warshawsky’s intellectual honesty and also the substance of his argument.

The argument is simple; it’s mystifying that the Democrats have been so inept at making it. (The waffling of politicians like Maria Cantwell on Iraq has been downright embarassing, even as they ignore the bigger picture.)

First, challenge the false assumption that victory in the war in terror depends upon victory on Iraq. Second, acknowledge the low likelihood of a flourishing democracy in Iraq, an opinion supported by polls of ordinary voters as well as experts. Third, present a proactive and muscular set of alternative investments that will bring us success in the war on terror (”What about preventing Iran and other terror-sponsoring states from obtaining WMDs?  What about hunting down and destroying known terror groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas?  These were the major elements of the original Bush Doctrine, which the American people wholeheartedly supported.”)

The third step– proactive action against terrorism- is a difficult place for the pacifist wing of the Democratic party to go to.  Going there will not sit well with those who oppose all war or military force.  But the electorate has clearly spoken that they are unsatisfied with a purely defensive approach towards terrorism. Bush and the neocons won by default, with no compelling alternative plans for preventing terrorism, and led us down the current misguided path, seizing more and more power for the presidency at every step.

We need to escape the disastrous spiral that began on September 11th and has continued through a series of largely self-inflicted harms, ending in our current situation of an Iraq quagmire that saps our strength, plunging respect worldwide for the United States, and a loss of freedom and liberty here at home.

We’re in such a bad fix, we have to look beyond party labels. If Democrats can’t argue effectively against Bush, then perhaps principled Republicans will have to do it for them.  Sadly, real progress is difficult because neither parter has a critical mass of intellect and integrity– it’s so much easier to play the current political games around Iraq than it is to address the real issues.