Politicization of war by Republican officeholders only rarely impugns the patriotism of political adversaries. In replying, progressives may even be more apt to do so, which only undercuts their stature. The politicization that has characterized the president's exposition of his counterterrorism agenda, from its worthy components to its mistaken ones, raises different problems -- in its shallowness and, in some respects, its phoniness. There's an intimidating tone to the rhetoric, and a popular aggressiveness, but these qualities are predicated first of all on the simplification of the policy challenges that winning the war actually entails.

Objecting primarily to the haranguing style of the president's arguments, a style also used, with lessening fidelity, by other Republican incumbents, progressives play on their opponents' turf and set themselves up to be seen as irresponsibly rebellious teenagers. They need instead to keep the forceful tone that conveys the urgency almost all Americans know is needed in the fight against al Qaeda while directing their proposals to the more relevant, complex policy challenges that Americans increasingly understand to have mired us in a painful, dangerous, and counterproductive Iraq stalemate. The president was right to stress the appeal and the worth of liberty in tonight's commemoration. But he will only lead our nation deeper toward failure in this urgent project unless he, the Congress, and the electorate can be shown one of the clear lessons of the past five years. Securing a livable freedom in a nascent democracy requires not just a military struggle against terrorist outliers but serious engagement with the needs of others, especially those we deign to control with force of arms for their own purported good. Their priorities are bound to be unexpected and confusing to us, but no less important to them, and they only grow in urgency with each day. Our shifting response to that challenge will help determine whether future American promises of freedom stir hearts to hope or anger.

The national security debate needs to continue, and we cannot win it by decrying its existence or the hawks' strike-first manner of waging it, which echoes and reinforces their martial posture abroad. It's morally and strategically harmful much of the time, but in its invocation of courage and national self-respect that posture appeals to something powerful and enduring in the national psyche. It is something partly worthy, as this anniversary of rescuers' courage reminds us, and partly ignorant and hypocritical, as many of our past wars and many episodes in this one remind us too. Yet providing better solutions will give progressives a new momentum and engagement in this debate; it's a focus that speaks to the bottom line question of "are we winning?" This progressive security focus recognizes the need for partial and messy solutions, including diplomacy and multilateralism, more often than it offers bold lines in the sand, but it also makes the promise of freedom, a theme about which the president often approaches eloquence, more real on the ground in real people's lives.

At some level, we all know that freedom only has value when realized in real life for individuals in their communities, and real life remains a messy, fragile, and beautiful thing. Making freedom more real there must respect that fragility. The horror of Iraq under our occupation has not done so and the hopes of Iraq's people have been betrayed by our leadership. Our ongoing crisis in Afghanistan, which began in a just war, where women and children and the desperately poor population wait and wait for more opportunity and freedom, is another case study in ongoing tragedy. These efforts and any to come, hopefully not attending more mass bloodshed, must learn to respect the fragility of real life and the dignity of existing societies, and must not take away two doses of freedom, or five, paintsakingly improvised by and lived out in a long-besieged culture, in order to provide one dose of freedom carrying the imprimatur of official sanction, whether of the United States, an allied government, a religious authority, or a corporation. That transaction would result in a loss of freedom for its alleged beneficiaries, and all the speeches in the world from presidents and diplomats would not impress the hearts and minds thereby alienated from our goals and from the best possibilities of trust and friendship between us.