Fighting Smarter

Democrats are increasingly critical of President Bush's handling of national security. But do they have their own plan? Can they make Americans safer? The answer to both questions is an emphatic "yes." The details are in With All Our Might, a new book edited by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. The book offers 15 essays by leading foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic Party. Together, they present a progressive alternative to the Bush administration's faltering policies for defeating jihadist terrorism. The following article is adapted from the book's opening essay.

Americans should not be lulled into complacency by the fact that terrorists have not struck the United States since 9/11. The worldwide contagion of jihadist violence is growing, not contracting. Incredibly, the Bush administration appears to be losing an ideological war to fanatics who exult in the murder of innocents and dream of restoring the medieval caliphate.

Throughout the Middle East, there is disturbingly broad sympathy for Osama bin Laden and copycat extremist groups. In much of Europe, official and public antipathy for the Bush administration overshadows a mutual trans-Atlantic interest in confronting Islamist violence.

Partly because of his errors in Iraq, partly due to his own shortcomings as a communicator, and partly due to the myopia of his top aides at the Pentagon and elsewhere, the president has failed to rally progressive forces, both in the West and in the Middle East, against an ideology that is profoundly hostile to liberal values and to the humane ethos of genuine Islam.

The Bush administration's failures are not simply a matter of incompetence. They are the systematic reflection of a worldview -- conservative unilateralism -- that believes America can shape international affairs simply by flexing its military muscle.

Even before 9/11, conservatives looked at the growing "power gap" that America enjoys with the rest of the world and reached two flawed conclusions. First, they overestimated what can be achieved by military power alone. The continuing carnage in Iraq, three years after U.S. forces easily toppled Saddam Hussein, is a tragic measure of their error. Second, they underestimated the value of international alliances and institutions that augment and help to legitimate the use of American power.

In short, the Bush Republicans have been tough, but they have not been smart. The security formula of military dominance, ad hoc "coalitions of the willing," and pre-emptive war has failed to make Americans safer or the jihadists weaker. In fact, the Republicans' purblind policies have opened up the greatest chasm in modern memory between the scope of American power and our actual sense of security and standing in the world. But the American electorate will not turn over national leadership to the Democrats unless they step forward with a new and better plan for victory.

Democrats should begin by reaffirming their party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.

Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the noninterventionist left, between a view that assumes our might always makes us right, and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong. It stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary; to show what the Declaration of Independence called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind"; to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion; to reduce human suffering where we can; and to bolster alliances and global institutions committed to upholding an increasingly democratic world order.

By applying the organizing principles of progressive internationalism -- national strength, equal opportunity, liberal democracy, U.S. leadership for collective security -- Democrats can design a strategy that will defeat Islamist extremism. That strategy should specifically revolve around five key imperatives:

First, we must marshal all of America's manifold strengths, starting with our military power but going well beyond it, for the struggle ahead.

Second, we must rebuild America's alliances, because democratic solidarity is one of our greatest strategic assets.

Third, we must champion liberal democracy in deed, not just in rhetoric, because a freer world is a safer world.

Fourth, we must renew U.S. leadership in the international economy and rise to the challenge of global competition.

Fifth, we must summon from the American people a new spirit of national unity and shared sacrifice.

Use all our strengths. Democrats must be committed to preserving America's military pre-eminence, because a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership. Diplomacy works best when it is backed by the credible threat of force. Therefore, we must give high priority to repairing the damage done by the Bush administration to America's all-volunteer force.

But it is also important to be clear about what military force can and cannot accomplish in the struggle against radical Islam. Our real enemy is the jihadist ideology, and you cannot kill beliefs with a gun. To prevail in the struggle against jihadism, we must work with moderate Muslims to change the conditions that breed anger and despair throughout the greater Middle East. These include repressive and corrupt governments, economic stagnation, technological backwardness, military weakness, and a humiliating sense of cultural decline. Such conditions do not excuse terrorism, but they do help to explain the attraction of the Salafist slogan: "Islam is the answer."

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly said, the democracies need a strategy that is both tough on terrorists and tough on the conditions that breed terrorism.

The United States and its democratic allies can offer a remedy to the pathologies that afflict the greater Middle East different from the military- centric approach the Bush administration has followed. We should launch a sweeping program of economic, political, and social reform in the region. Trade and financial investment, aid tied to open governance and modern education systems, and consistent backing for human rights and pro-democracy reformers are the keys to a comprehensive, patient strategy for banking the fires of jihadist violence.

Such measures are especially important in Iraq. The fact that President Bush and his team have mismanaged virtually every aspect of post-war reconstruction does not justify an immediate or precipitous withdrawal. Our national interests demand that we not leave until we are assured that Iraq will not become a threat to Americans' safety. And our national honor demands that, having invaded their country, we not abandon the Iraqi people to chaos and sectarian violence.

Instead, we should rally the American people for an extended and robust security and reconstruction presence, even as we push the administration to gradually transfer security responsibilities to the improving Iraqi forces, help to build truly national rather than sectarian institutions, and shore up regional as well as international backing for the Iraqi government.

Rebuild strategic alliances. Rather than constraining U.S. freedom of action, as conservative unilateralists complain, our alliances have more often extended America's reach, amplified our voice in world affairs, and increased global trust and confidence in the exercise of our immense power. Therefore, we must rebuild longstanding strategic partnerships that have begun to fray, cultivate better relations with such rising democratic powers as India, and strengthen institutions for collective security. Renewing the democratic solidarity of the West, in particular, must be a top strategic priority.

At the same time, we must have no illusions that multilateralism can be a substitute for vigorous U.S. leadership. It is, sadly, the case that our allies too often lack the will, the cohesion, or the means to undertake difficult assignments. This is why the United States had to lead the way in the Balkans during the 1990s, as well as in Iraq.

We are also skeptical of the European left's claims that the United Nations presents a credible alternative to U.S. power. From Kosovo to Rwanda, and from Iraq to Darfur, the United Nations has often been paralyzed by a lack of consensus among its leading powers and tarnished by corruption among those who execute its mandates. While we should always try to build such a consensus, we cannot let its absence stop us when the case for armed intervention is strategically or morally compelling.

The answer is not to give up on collective security, but to dramatically transform the United Nations, or create new institutions that enable the international community to muster the will and means to act on its responsibility to protect people from ethnic cleansing, genocide, and catastrophic terrorist attacks. Progressive internationalists also will strengthen NATO's anti-terrorism capabilities and nurture a growing political consensus within NATO for tackling the shared threat posed by jihadist extremism.

Reclaim liberal democracy. Bush's rhetorical embrace of Middle East democracy as a strategic objective has led some Democrats to reflexively conclude that it must be a bad idea. But Democrats should instead reclaim their own tradition of muscular liberalism as exemplified by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton -- a tradition that has championed liberal democracy in deed, not just in rhetoric.

One clear area where progressives can draw that line between themselves and the Bush administration is on the use of torture as an instrument of American military policy. The prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and the promotion of extreme interrogation techniques at Guantanamo not only invite others to mistreat U.S. prisoners; they also erode our moral standing with advocates of human rights and democracy abroad.

Principled conservatives, notably Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), know that "waterboarding" is incompatible with freedom fighting. It is disgraceful that many others, including Vice President Dick Cheney, do not.

Promoting democracy is in our strategic interest because the intentions and actions of states are as powerfully shaped by their internal character and governance arrangements as by abstract concepts like the balance of power. Countries with accountable political institutions are better global citizens than autocratic regimes. They tend to be more open, more prosperous, more likely to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts, to keep their agreements, and to abide by civilized norms of conduct. It is hardly an accident that, of the many rogue and failing states in the world, none is a genuine democracy.

Progressives and Democrats must not give up the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad just because Bush has paid it lip service. Advancing democracy is fundamentally the Democrats' legacy, the Democrats' cause, and the Democrats' responsibility.

Link prosperity and security. Bush's fiscal policy has weakened America's strength by decoupling security from sound economics.

Wartime presidents typically raise taxes; Bush has repeatedly cut them, shifting the cost of today's security to our children, while also shifting the tax burden from wealthy to working families. Wartime presidents typically subordinate everything to the war effort; Bush has presided over an unprecedented orgy of federal spending at the behest of special interests. On his watch, nonmilitary spending has grown by an astonishing 27.9 percent.

As a result of these choices, America today faces a national fiscal emergency -- big budget deficits and an exploding national debt, even before the stupendous costs of the baby boom generation's impending retirement are factored in. Under the Bush Republicans, Americans are borrowing more heavily from foreigners than ever before to make up the difference between what we consume and what we produce. This makes our nation's financial health dangerously dependent on the willingness of investors in China and other foreign capitals to finance our debts.

Moreover, with two glaring exceptions, the president has asked Americans to give up virtually nothing for the war effort. The first exception is, of course, our all-volunteer military, which has been asked to shoulder the physical burden of the war. The second exception is America's children and future generations, onto whom the administration has shifted the bulk of the financial cost of this war.

Progressives believe that a strategy of robust internationalism is only sustainable if we ask Americans to share its costs and risks equitably. That is why we would repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and use part of the proceeds to invest in equipping, enlarging, and modernizing America's Armed Forces. And we would create new opportunities for young Americans to make contributions to our battle against terrorism, such as enlarging national service to assist with emergency preparedness, and expanding training of young people in languages that could help the counterterrorism efforts of the State Department and the CIA.

Progressives also understand that our leaders cannot preach democracy to others while ignoring the deep flaws and injustices of our own democracy. We must not flinch from tackling these problems, including comparatively high rates of poverty among working families and children, the shameful fact that over 40 million of our fellow citizens still lack basic health insurance, a persistent education achievement gap between minority and white students -- our No. 1 civil rights challenge -- and the lack of public supports for people who lose their jobs in the fast-changing global economy.

"Ask not" ... again. At critical junctures -- just after 9/11 and after the 2004 election -- Bush had opportunities to rally the country behind a comprehensive response to jihadist terrorism that would have confronted pressing domestic problems as well as our overseas enemies. Instead, he and his advisers chose to turn national security into a partisan wedge issue.

For example, they filled our highest post at the United Nations with an anti-U.N. ideologue, John Bolton, who helped wage the Bush Florida recount litigation in 2000. They wielded the Patriot Act as a partisan bludgeon. They turned key homeland security positions into dumping grounds for unqualified cronies, like the hapless Michael Brown at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They filled sensitive public diplomacy positions with political operatives like Karen Hughes, who lack the international experience or bipartisan backing to speak for America and improve the country's image abroad.

Progressive internationalists know that America's national security policies are doomed to fail if they are designed to be either "red" or "blue." They will work to rebuild the badly shredded national consensus for engagement abroad that existed during most of the Cold War and the years immediately following it.

The Democrats' challenge. Developing a successful strategy against jihadist terror is a security imperative for all Americans. But it is a particular political imperative for the Democratic Party, which has long suffered from a national security confidence gap.

Virtually the only thing the public knows at this point about the Democrats' positions on national security is that a large number of them want to pull out of Iraq. That communicates very little -- even to those who might favor withdrawal -- about the positive steps Democrats would take to prosecute the war against jihadist extremists and make the country safer.

Of course Democrats have an obligation as the opposition party to hold the administration accountable for its failures in Iraq. But discrediting Bush's stewardship of U.S. foreign policy does not, by itself, establish Democrats' credibility on national security. Democrats should be defining themselves not just by their Iraq critique, but by their post-Iraq strategy.

It is notable that, in addition to National security, the other area on which Democrats still trail Republicans by big margins in opinion surveys is on the question of whether voters "know what they stand for." The two liabilities are linked: Democrats need to articulate a clear and principled strategy for making Americans safer, both to show what they stand for, and to prove they can be trusted to protect the country.

Our hope is that our book will provide some of the strategic ideas to fuel those conversations -- so that more progressives can unite around national security policies that give the public confidence, and so that we can give America the tools to win the battle against jihadist terror in the years ahead.