Progressivism Post 9/11

American progressives have a problem in the post 9/11 world and that problem is how we deal with terrorism. To a lesser extent than in 2004, when Karl Rove and the Bush team successfully painted John Kerry as "weak" when it came to dealing with national security, terrorism will still be on the minds of many American voters when they go the polls to select our next president.  We know this to be true not from polls, though polls there are, but because the sad reality is that, no matter who is elected next November, they will be forced to deal with the foreign policy of George W. Bush. With our reputation tainted abroad and our troops bogged down in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deadly streets of Iraq, decisions need to be made. But what kind of decisions do we, as progressives, hope are made?

In an article in Foreign Affairs this month, Barack Obama outlines his foreign policy views and begins his essay by reminding voters of the policies of some of the Democratic Party's past presidents.

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism. Truman championed a bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world. As colonialism crumbled and the Soviet Union achieved effective nuclear parity, Kennedy modernized our military doctrine, strengthened our conventional forces, and created the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress. They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Obama's decision to remind voters of these Democratic icons is clear: he, and some of the other Democrats currently running for president, are not going to tolerate being labeled as the isolationist/waive the white flag party of John Kerry and Howard Dean. We all know, of course, that neither Kerry nor Dean had that foreign policy strategy in mind. However, they were branded with that label by the Republican campaign and it stuck. Well, not on Obama's watch.

In fact, Obama is making it quite clear that he believes the opposite:

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

Had I not known better, I could have imagined lines like this being taken from the 1961 Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy in which he said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

Kennedy was talking about defending liberty in the face of communism. Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates are talking about defending it from terrorism. Is this ok?

I will never forget, nor will many Americans, where I was on 9/11. It is a moment I will tell my children and grandchildren about for sure. But when I am telling that story, and after I am done telling them of crashing planes and falling buildings, what else will I tell them? How will I respond to, "Daddy, what did we do next?"

As of now, what we did next is this: we invaded Afghanistan with widespread international support. Once we were there, we routed the Taliban and its sympathetic government, destroyed al-Qaeda training camps, and hunted for the man who was responsible for the attack on our country. Much of that happened in 2002. It is 2007. We are still there.

From Afghanistan, we went to Iraq. Everyone knows what happened from there.

But this is where it becomes difficult for progressives. Most of us were angry in the aftermath of 9/11 and understood that the US needed to respond. Only one member of Congress voted against the authorization of force in Afghanistan. One. We felt that we needed to get the job done, eliminate those who had attacked us, and return home. When the President tried to connect 9/11 with Iraq, most of us did not buy it and we opposed the Iraq War. We are still opposing the Iraq War.

By now, almost all Americans have grown tired of our misadventure in Iraq and want to bring the troops home. But, like Korea, Afghanistan has become a forgotten war. Poll after poll is taken about the Iraq War, but what says the voters on Afghanistan?

It's hard to tell. But once again, we look to our presidential candidates for understanding. In a speech delivered today in Washington, Obama outlined his counter-terrorism strategy.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences...

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

So the question we need to ask is this: is Obama pandering to those who say he is naive by taking the toughest Democratic stance of the campaign on terrorism or are progressives truly hawkish when it comes to fighting the War on Terror?

John Edwards recently called the War on Terror a "bumper sticker slogan" as opposed to a strategy and seems to indicate he does not believe there is, or needs to be, a global war against terrorists.

This is the fight within the progressive community - after spending billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and destroying our reputation abroad, do we really need to keep fighting or is it time to "Come home, America" as George McGovern famously said during Vietnam. This question will play out for the next six months and beyond and perhaps we will never know the right answer until I am telling my grandchildren the story in forty years.