TO: FROM: RE: Overview effective ineffective

Transcription

1 June 2007 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Third Way (Jon Cowan, Matt Bennett and Sharon Burke) brilliant corners Research & Strategies (Cornell Belcher and Jason McKnight) RE: Reframing the National Security Debate Overview Democrats have an opportunity right now to use their stand against Bush s Iraq policy as a positive defining moment for the Party. It is a unique moment one that could help to solidify the electoral gains made in last November s elections, particularly with Independent voters who Democrats have struggled to secure in past elections. Republicans have lost a great deal of credibility around national security since 2004, though it was once their ace in the hole. If that support erodes further, and if Democrats can begin to own the issue themselves, they will be well positioned to again expand the electoral playing field and increase their majorities in But recent public opinion research by Third Way and brilliant corners reveals that Democrats also face a significant test: they must ensure that the short term gain in public opinion does not contribute to a long term deficit in public confidence. That means they must proactively frame the national security debate or Republicans will do it for them. The President and his allies are working to do just that. In their rhetorical formulation, Republicans are on the offensive, taking the fight to America s enemies, while Democrats want to retreat and play defense. To be sure, this portrayal is inaccurate, but if it is allowed to take hold even against the backdrop of an unpopular war in Iraq it would present a severe long term governing and political problem for Democrats. So Democrats are faced with both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, they have the chance to flip the national security debate and regain their onceheld dominance in this area. But on the other hand, they are at risk of repeating the mistakes of the post-vietnam era and being perceived as weak. Consequently, one of the most urgent policy and communications imperatives is to reject the Bush/neoconservative framework and turn the choice into one between an effective offense a strategy to take the fight to our real enemies versus an ineffective approach that has us bogged down in an Iraqi civil war and facing a backsliding Afghanistan, a menacing Iran and other problems. Democrats have the best plan for America s security, and it is vital that they communicate in those terms. Every time Democrats talk about security, whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, or any other threat, they should note their plans for success that would put us on the offense against our nation s enemies.

2 Understanding the Challenge: the Republican Attack The fundamental Republican argument about the Iraq War and national security in general has not changed in four years: we must fight them there, so we do not have to fight them here. This is a classic formulation about offense vs. defense, and it is an argument that is being aggressively recycled by Republican presidential candidates. This argument goes hand-in-glove with the recent charge, now made frequently by the Republican presidential candidates, the White House and their congressional allies, that Democrats want to set a surrender date in Iraq and that support for ending the war is tantamount to retreat. Republicans argue, as Mitt Romney did at the South Carolina debate, that the terrorists are waging a global jihadist effort, and what we are doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what s going to happen in this global struggle. They charge that Iraq is an offensive operation in this struggle, and that Democrats want to go on the defensive. For example, Rudy Giuliani has made this his signature critique: If any Republican is elected president and I think obviously I would be the best at this we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it. I listen a little to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-sept. 11 attitude of defense. (New Hampshire Lincoln Day Dinner, April 24, 2007) Recent polling by brilliant corners suggests that much of this old Republican rhetoric is resonating with voters far less than it did in years past. Undoubtedly, that is a positive development for Democrats. But the Republicans loss of credibility on security does not necessarily equal a Democratic gain in credibility, and Democrats should not make the mistake of thinking that voter dissatisfaction with the President and his war is the same as satisfaction with Democrats. As research by brilliant corners and Third Way has found, the public remains wary about Democrats on national security, and voters maintain some residual faith in Republicans when it comes to defending the nation. Third Way also tested public perceptions of the two political parties and found that Independent voters have clung to some long-standing preconceptions about Democrats. Independents said the following statements apply more to Democrats: They are unwilling to use military force, event when it s necessary to protect America (59-38%) (Even a small majority of Democrats ascribed this more to their own party than to Republicans.) They are not tough enough to do what is needed to protect America (57-41%) Unless Democrats squarely face these perceptions and relentlessly reject the Republican frame, they will severely undermine long term efforts to replace a failed Bush/neocon foreign policy doctrine and successfully demonstrate that the Third Way/brilliant corners Memo 2

3 Democratic Party is tough and smart on defense issues. Moreover, they will cede ground to the Republicans that they do not deserve, considering the poor job the President and his party have done in fighting al Qaeda. Democrats must not allow them to inaccurately frame the national security choices for the American people. Taking Advantage of the Opportunity: Democrats on the Offensive In short, Democrats must flip the entire debate into a choice between the ineffective Republican approach on national security versus an effective Democratic offensive strategy. That begins by making clear that the notion of surging more troops into Iraq has put the United States on the offensive against our enemies is simply wrong. Rather, we must communicate to voters that the Iraq War has kept the US pinned down, with our brave troops attempting to police a civil war and unable to devote the resources and energy we need to hunting down and killing or capturing the terrorists who are plotting to attack America, and diverting us from the hard work of fighting the dangerous, radical ideas that have inspired al Qaeda s followers. A number of factors have aligned to create a moment for Democrats to completely change the nature of the security debate: Substantive Developments: All recent publicly available intelligence reports have shown that the Bush Iraq plan has created more terrorists and made America less safe, as well as dangerously depleted our military resources, including damage to the National Guard and Reserves. Public Opinion about Iraq: As Third Way found in its recent poll, Independent voters picked the statement the war in Iraq is a distraction that diverts resources and other attention away from the real war on terror over the statement the war in Iraq is an important part of the war on terror by a margin of 59-32% (overall it was 54-39%). Similar majorities said that the war in Iraq has made the US less safe (Ind: 57-27%; All: 55-32%). And recent work by brilliant corners revealed that a substantial majority of voters (59%) agree that we should set a timeline to begin drawing down troops in Iraq. There is also growing concern about our troops policing a civil war and the President s allusion to an endless Korea-style 50-year American presence in Iraq. Public Opinion about Bush: Brilliant corners found the President s job performance and favorability ratings are at or near all-time lows and that his my way or the highway approach is off-putting not only to his opponents but also to some key groups of Republican-leaning voters. Bush/Republican Reversals: The President went from dismissing the Iraq Study Group report to embracing it, and his rhetoric has now shifted to make him appear more willing to work with Congress. Other Republicans also are beginning to understand that their rhetoric is not working, which is why some are changing it. As Democrats continue to press the debate, they should use this for the larger frame of effective offense vs. an ineffective approach. Democrats should claim credit as they actually deserve for bringing Republicans around. Third Way/brilliant corners Memo 3

4 The task for Democrats now begins with making it clear to the public that they seek a responsible, successful end in Iraq one that protects America s interests and gives the Iraqis responsibility for their own future. Voters want to feel good about what the troops have done and what they have sacrificed. They rightly reject talk of failure on the part of our military. And while voters want the troops out of Iraq soon, they also want the United States to do that responsibly, and to the extent possible, without leaving disaster in our wake. Democrats must stress that the troops have done their job with extraordinary courage and determination, but that the mission in Iraq must change to a political one, not a military one. They must explain that our troops deserve an offensive strategy, one worthy of their dedication and skill, and one that can be executed successfully. So to be sure, Democrats must take the Iraq issue head on. But that is not enough. Democrats must also talk clearly about the need to take the fight to our enemies globally, articulating a long term strategy that is primarily offensive, aimed at crushing al Qaeda and its allies. To fight that battle effectively to go on the offensive against al Qaeda the United States must responsibly redeploy our resources away from the civil war in Iraq and into the fight with global terrorists. A new ad by the group VoteVets featuring an Afghanistan war veteran and retired General Wesley Clark gets this approach exactly right: Afghanistan 2005 MIKE BREEN: Marines were ambushed. Men were being hit. My artillery unit was holding off the enemy but we were running out of ammunition. I kept calling for helicopters to re-supply us. But the helicopters never came. Where were the helicopters? GENERAL CLARK: The helicopters, the equipment, and the troops are stuck fighting George Bush's war in Iraq. Congress has to help get the strategy right, so we can fight the terrorists who are the real threat to America. (VoteVets ad, May 2007) Indeed, in the years since 9-11, the terrorist threat has grown. There are now more members of al-qaeda, their attacks worldwide have increased, their leadership is still at large and publishing propaganda, and their allies are making a comeback in Afghanistan. 1 Meanwhile, the United States spent years on the sidelines of talks with Iran and North Korea, while both developed their nuclear weapons program. And we have not done enough to confront nuclear proliferation in the former Soviet Union. Moreover, while Democrats are right to argue that we must significantly strengthen homeland security (our nation s defense), it is crucial that they do so as part of the overall offensive steps they would take. These could include, among many other things: shifting significantly more forces and resources back to Afghanistan to win the fight there against al Qaeda and the Taliban; increasing the size of the Army by 100,000 troops and expanding the Special Operations Forces and military police; 1 See Burke and Bennett, Beyond Bush: A New Strategy of Constriction to Defeat Al-Qaeda and Its Allies, Third Way/brilliant corners Memo 4

5 overhauling our intelligence services to meet 21 st century threats; beefing up our nuclear non-proliferation efforts by increasing funds for the Nunn-Lugar program; restoring military alliances, etc. 2 In a September 2006 survey, Third Way asked voters what they thought it would mean if Democrats won a majority in Congress: would Democrats weaken the President s ability to fight the war on terror, or push the President to change course and to fight terrorism more effectively? By a % margin, voters thought a Democratic majority would push the President to change course for the better on terror. In November, voters provided Democrats with an historic opportunity to prove them right in this view. But at this moment, the jury is still out. Democrats can win voters trust, take advantage of recent Republican woes and shake off the hangover of Vietnam, but only if they are clear that what they seek is an effective, offensive national security strategy that takes the fight directly to this nation s enemies. 2 See Galston, Kamarck and Burke, Security First: A Strategy for Defending America, Third Way/brilliant corners Memo 5