Dems' Real Security Agenda: Highlight the Difference, Not the Dodge

The Real Security Agenda just published by Democrats will disappoint much of the Democratic base. It doesn't propose immediate withdrawal on Iraq; it doesn't put forth a clear timetable. It accepts much of the military definition of security championed by the administration.

But activists should embrace it; not denounce it. Democrats do pledge -- however incoherently since they have no power now -- to make 2006 a year of transition in Iraq. They pledge to redeploy the troops and have Iraqis take over running their own country. This is stark contrast with the Bush promise that the troops will be there till at least 2009. Democrats pledge a drive for energy independence. This a stark contrast with the Republican addiction to oil, that has included lavishing billions on subsidies for oil producers over last year, while consolidating a base structure in the oil regions.

We should highlight -- even exaggerate -- these fundamental differences. Bush wants troops to stay in the midst of the civil war. Democrats want them out. Bush will increase our dependence on foreign oil. Dems pledge energy independence.

By highlighting the difference, activists can help cement Democrats to a withdrawal posture, and help frame the choice this fall. In 2004, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were calling for more troops in Iraq. Now mugged by reality, Dems are calling for "redeployment." Don't focus on the timidity; highlight the contrast with the president. That poses the choice for the country -- and locks Democrats into a clear position.