Less casualties though. Less wars that are expensive and counter productive.

 More seriously, the point is valid, but I have a sense that the Reid's of this world are reading the political calculations better at this point. It is still early to take focus away from (R) problems.

Bush is not going to dog himself out of his hole anytime soon. Republican support will continue to flounder and twist, and there is a lot of time before the midterms.

With that said they could be doing a much better job of planting a narrative that is devastating to the (R)s. The only consistent elements of Republicanism are the corruption and the dishonesty -- and Dems should be laying the foundation for the argument that this behavior is not just politicians, but Repoublican politicians.

As MY knows as well as anyone, the "Real Security" is not a document intended to influence George W. Bush's policies - it is a political document, and they want it to tie them down as little as possible when they get the House or the Senate in 2006  (fingers crossed).

I think I have reached my platitude limit, so I will quit for now.

"....isn't the smart thing to do to combine this set of proposals with an explicit endorsement of Bush's goals in foreign policy?

In a word, no. It is precisely the foreign policy that is misguided and generates the tactical failure.

There is no way to sensibly plan the rest of the world. We can seek more room for maueuver, and more flexibility in response, to what comes down the pike. We can only plan our own goals, and those should be 1) renewable energy, not only to help the climate but because it will help the whole world, and 2) move aggressively to interrupt CO2-driven warming, and possibly develop ameliorating steps to cool the planet and/or remove CO2. Renewable energy isn't just nice, it saves money, and gets cheaper as time goes by. Climate change will eventually produce millions of refugees here at home, not to mention around the world.

These issues will drive the next wars, unless we act now. 

First, we should realize its a political document, not a policy document.  Even if the Dems were to get Congress back, the most they could do on national security would be to monitor and check Bush's policy agenda, not enact an agenda of their own.

The political question becomes whether lacking a national security vision at the present time hurts the Democrats?   The Democrats have to cobble together a motly coalition that includes enraged Jeffersonians enraged at Bush's "imperial ambitions", Wilsonians frusterated by Bush's incompetence and the gap between his rhetoric and action, and Hamiltonians who balk at the way Bush has favored ideology over stability. 

At the same time, Dems cannot ignore the plurality of Jacksonians who have formed the core of Bush's support in the war on terror but are growing increasingly uncomfortable with a long-term committment to Iraq.  The problem is that the only things Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian critcis of Bush can agree on is the disaster of the administration's Jacksonian policies - the dismissal of international institutions, the use of torture and unchecked expansion of executive power.

Given this conundrum, the Dems best option may simply be to hold themselves out as Not Bush on national security and to cull their general wonky laundry list of items down to three easy to sound-byte programs - for example: (1) beefing up port security, (2) full equipment for every soldier and (3) subsdizing hybrid cars.

Agree in large part, but there has to be a positive agenda that goes down the throat of the GOP's favorite sons: energy/oil, mainly. A full-scale, government-incentivised alternative energy program, like that proposed by Obama and others, would show that Dems are not simply obsessed about Bush, but have larger interests and ideas.

Sorry, this document is best suited to hang in the outhouses of the less well developed parts of this country.  Anytime it takes a 120+ page document to describe what our policy is, we have no policy.  I am quite sure I could write a policy document in less than two pages, and have it be easily understood and comprehensive.

What the heck do our so called leaders think they are doing?  Surely one of the lessons to be learned from the Kerry campaign is that having detailed, endless documents describing our positions is not a way to get elected.  If a candidate cannot answer the question, "what is your policy towards national security" in the two minutes typically  provided in debates, he has already lost the election.

I wonder if we even know what our national security policy should be. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

October 2006 -  Hillary and her DLC claque have paralyzed the Democratic Part on Iraq, moved to the right of Bush on Iran...

Bush gives them what they asked for and as the Middle East plunges ever deeper into chaos, Bush will have given the Democrats just what they asked for....

 Their third drubbing in a row.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Given this conundrum, the Dems best option may simply be to hold themselves out as Not Bush on national security and to cull their general wonky laundry list of items down to three easy to sound-byte programs - for example: (1) beefing up port security, (2) full equipment for every soldier and (3) subsdizing hybrid cars

 

Stalemate and paralysis are hardly the Democrat's "best option".  Perhaps you meant "only option"?

The Iraq Debacle is the only issue on which the Democrats, with a straightforward opooition, can join issue with the Republicans, nationalize the election, and their only hope for taking control of at least one chamber.

Instinct for the Capillaries

Hardly the best option, the only option is a recipie for another defeat..

Is there a Three Strikes Law in Politics. If not, there should be.

sigh

Iraq

In this election, there is also one issue in particular that has a chance to drive further nationalization of the election, almost by itself: Iraq. I have covered in detail the ever-worsening public sentiments on Iraq. But there is no indication we have hit bottom yet. Indeed, it is possible we are on the verge of a qualitative negative shift in public attitudes toward the war and the administration responsible for it. A March 27 New York Times story, “In an Election Year, a Shift in Public Opinion on the War“ reported:

Interviews with voters, elected officials and candidates around the country suggest a deepening and hardening opposition to the war. Historians and analysts said this might mark a turning point in public perception.

"I'm less optimistic because I see the fatalities every day," said Angela Kirby, 32, a lawyer from St. Louis who initially supported the war. "And the longer it goes on, the less optimistic I am."

Here in New Mexico, Dollie Shoun, 67, said she had gone from being an ardent supporter of the war and the president to a fierce critic of both.

"There has been too many deaths, and it is time for them to come back home," Ms. Shoun said. Speaking of Mr. Bush, she added: "I was very much for him, but I don't trust him at this point in time."

Polls have found that support for the war and expectations about its outcome have reached their lowest level since the invasion. A Pew Research Center poll this week found that 66 percent of respondents said the United States was losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq, a jump of 18 percent since January.....

Richard B. Wirthlin, who was the pollster for President Ronald Reagan, says he sees the beginning of a decisive turn in public opinion against the war. "It is hard for me to imagine any set of circumstances that would lead to an enhancement of the public support that we have seen," he said. "It is more likely to go down, and the question is how far and how fast."

 

Ruy T,

Stalemate and paralysis are hardly the Democrat's "best option".  Perhaps you meant "only option"?

The Iraq Debacle is the only issue on which the Democrats, with a straightforward opooition, can join issue with the Republicans, nationalize the election, and their only hope for taking control of at least one chamber.

You are arguing that the Dems best option is to tap into the growing Jacksonian opposition to the war in Iraq.   Independent of the substantive merits of withdrawal, this is a sticky political problem, however, based on the very contradictory impulses of Jacksonians.  Their not happy with any war that doesn't have a clear path to victory, but they also have a viceral reaction to America appearging "weak" - which Bush has effectively stoked since 9/11. 

While its not a perfect analogy, the politics of Vietnam are a cautionary tale.  The Jacksonians who turned against the war in the large numbers in the early 1970s, rather than rewarding Democrats for their foresight and wisdom of their anti-war position, punished them for being "anti-military" and weak on Communism.  Reagan deftly exploited the shame Jacksonians felt over America's loss in Vietnam - and their opposition to the Jeffersonian view of the war as immoral.

Could the Dems call for an exit plan in Iraq without being painted as a party of Jeffersonian pacifists?  Possibly, but they would have to find a way to do it while holding the Jeffersonian grass roots at arms length.  The only way to do that is to avoid detail - promise to hold Bush accountable for what happens in Iraq and express opposition to babysitting a full-blown civil war.  Anything else however, will be easily painted as "Michael Moore cut and run." 

I am struck by how much attention the document gives to issues involving military folks directly - particularly veterans.  Democrats are seizing the opportunity offered by Bush's bungling of Iraq and other military and veterans issues to make a play for the votes of soldiers, veterans and their families.

Note particularly to tables showing numbers of veterans by state, and also numbers of "veterans denied health care coverage because of Bush policies", also by state. There are a lot of important battleground states on the list - note especially Florida.  Soldiers elected Bush to begin with, and it looks like Democrats are now preparing to take the battle to the Republican turf - including military districts.

The authors seem to have intentionally refrained from offering any grand strategic agenda.  Instead they have simply cribbed from various mainstream reports from DOD, Rand, CSIA, CSBA, CFR, etc. and followed their recommendations on resources.  Perhaps this modest and bureaucratic approach is unavoidable in the present environment, given growing public skepticism and disagreement about "Grand Strategy", and the absense of a consensus in the party.  Given that this is a congressional off-year election and not a Presidential year, the party will have no standard bearer to articulate an overarching vision.  The best approach may be an experimental one: give candidates the freedom to run on whatever works best in their home districts as far as ideology and generalities go.  Then see what works, what rising stars emerge, and use those experimental results to help craft a strategic vision in 2008.

As for Matt's question: "What's America's purpose in the world?" My former career as an academic philosopher inclines me toward addressing these deep, abstract existential questions about the meaning of life and the purpose of our existence - including our national existence.  But perhaps most American's already know what the purpose of America is.  After all, the American republic was created in a deliberate act of constitution-making, and came with a brith certificate stating the explicit purpose of constituting the United States of America - to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."