Are Democrats at war with the terrorist or the Bush adminsitration?

Jonathon Rauch:

So for Democrats, the war on terrorism is over. Not the terrorism part, mind you. Just the war part.

In 2004, the party's platform used the phrase "war against terror" or its equivalent ("war against Al Qaeda"; "war against a global terrorist movement") 12 times--beginning on page one, paragraph three. Typical language: "As Democrats and Americans, we yield to no one in our commitment to do everything necessary to win the war on terror." Foreign policy, led by "Defeating Terrorism," dominated the document.

The economy was relegated to a sheepish second place.

Four years ago, the war against terrorism was a war in the most literal sense, complete with combat operations, invocation of martial law against enemy combatants, and frequent reference to Congress's authorization of the use of military force. John Kerry accepted the Democratic presidential nomination by "reporting for duty" at the convention, with a salute.

Times change, and so do platforms. This year brings a peacetime election. For most Americans, the war on terror has become a figure of speech. Reflecting that new mentality, the 2008 draft Democratic platform, posted on TheAtlantic.com by Marc Ambinder on August 7, used the phrase "war on terror" only once. Which was exactly as many times as it used the phrase "war on science" (as in "Bush Administration's").

The Democrats take the problem of terrorism seriously; the draft platform makes that clear. Where security strategy is concerned, the 2004 and 2008 platforms are basically the same, except that today's Democrats promise a brisk withdrawal from Iraq and add emphasis on Pakistan. Four years ago, as again today, the platform called for improved international cooperation against terrorism; better public diplomacy; a redoubling of efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and to roust terrorist havens; stronger measures to prevent nuclear proliferation and keep nuclear materials out of mischief; nonmilitary democracy promotion; energy security; and better-focused homeland-security measures.

What has changed in four years is not the strategy but the conceptual framework around it. In 2004, the Democrats' proposals were presented as stratagems in a war against "a global terrorist movement of many groups, funded from different sources and with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe."

In 2008, by contrast, the Democrats present their security proposals as steps worth taking for a host of reasons, of which thwarting terrorism is just one. Terrorism, indeed, is nestled among threats that include weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, weak states, rising powers, addiction to oil, and global warming. The problem today is not an enemy axis but a threat matrix--not KAOS but chaos.

According to Athena Jones, a reporter for National Journal and NBC who has traveled extensively with Barack Obama's presidential campaign, the presumptive Democratic nominee sometimes mentions terrorism on the stump, but "I wouldn't say he talks about it all that frequently." Instead, he concentrates on the economy and related standard-of-living issues such as energy and health care.

...

Still, before Obama and the Democrats move on too quickly, a gentle reminder: This is not a peacetime election for Al Qaeda. In comments prepared for a discussion this month at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Ted Gistaro, a senior terrorism analyst in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, noted, "Al Qaeda's intent to attack the U.S. homeland remains undiminished." The organization, he added, "is identifying, training, and positioning operatives for attacks in the West, likely including in the United States."

Today's peacetime mentality, although prevalent, is fragile. A big explosion or two would shatter it faster than you can say "Ayman al-Zawahiri." Obama has shown he cares about change, about the economy, about moving troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. But what about terrorism? This is a candidate, remember, who has no military experience. This is a party whose base has at times managed to seem more alarmed and disgusted by President Bush's war than by Osama bin Laden's.

...

There is much more.

While John Kerry hinted at the return to the Clinton war strategy, Obama appears to have embraced those failed policies. He is deeply into the lawfare mode rather than the warfare mode. His platform is a giveaway that he is closer to MoveOn than to those who want to defeat the enemy.