Back when Rudy Giuliani was a presidential candidate, the one phrase he repeated more than any other was about his desire to “stay on offense” when it came to national security. He was never altogether clear what that meant, but it apparently had something to do with invading and occupying much of the Middle East.
Now is the ideal time to start redefining words like “offense,” and bring some sense to the national security debate.
In his speech yesterday in DC, Barack Obama did a very good job of trying to change the discussion, and explain why the political establishment has been thinking about these issues the wrong way for too long. Obama said, for example, that George Bush and John McCain “label any timetable to redeploy our troops ‘surrender,’ even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government — not to a terrorist enemy.” In other words, “surrender” doesn’t mean what Republican talking points say it means.
Likewise, Obama argued that it’s time to change our understanding of “success” in Iraq: “[T]rue success in Iraq — victory in Iraq — will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.”
Today, in another strong set of remarks on national security, Obama took on the word “offense.”
“We must never let down our guard, nor suffer another failure of imagination. It’s time for sustained and aggressive action — to take the offense against new dangers abroad, while shoring up our defenses at home. As President … I will speak clearly and candidly with the American people about what can be done — what must be done — to protect our country and our communities.”
When Giuliani talked about “taking the offense,” he meant by further execution of a neocon vision of the world. When Obama talks about “taking the offense,” he means something very different.
Greg Sargent has posted the prepared text in its entirety, and I’d recommend taking a look, but this was the portion that stood out for me.
“The danger, though, is that we are constantly fighting the last war – responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century. This is what the 9/11 Commission called our “failure of imagination.” And, after 9/11, nowhere was this more apparent than in our invasion of Iraq. Instead of adjusting to the stateless threats of the 21st century, we invaded and occupied a state that had no collaborative relationship with al Qaeda. Instead of taking aggressive steps to secure the world’s most dangerous technology, we have spent almost a trillion dollars to occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East that no longer had any weapons of mass destruction.
“It’s time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists – to see clearly the emerging threats of our young century, and to take action to make the American people more safe and secure. It’s time to look ahead — at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday. America cannot afford another president who doesn’t understand the threats that confront us now and in the future.
“Today, we will focus on nuclear, biological, and cyber threats — three 21st century threats that have been neglected for the last eight years. It’s time to break out of Washington’s conventional thinking that has failed to keep pace with unconventional threats. In doing so, we’ll better ensure the safety of the American people, while building our capacity to deal with other challenges — from public health to privacy.”
Greg noted, “I’s worth noting once again that Obama is staking his candidacy on the rather audacious belief that he can change, through persuasion, the way national security is discussed in this country — that Dems don’t have to cede this turf to the GOP.”
Quite right. Obama’s messages this week — the NYT op-ed on Monday, the DC speech yesterday, and the Purdue discussion today — are just about pitch-perfect. He isn’t defensive, and he’s not relying on conservative frames to discuss national security. He’s taking steps — and I hope he takes even more — to argue that the nation has been arguing in a fundamentally flawed way.
Now, I’ve seen all the recent polls. Obama’s strength is domestic policy and the economy; McCain’s strength is foreign policy and national security. The gap, on both fronts, is quite large. The conventional wisdom suggests Obama should try to change the subject, and keep the focus on the issues where he has the most support.
I tend to think this conventional thinking has it backwards, and I’m glad Obama is ignoring the conventional approach. There’s absolutely no reason for Obama to cede this ground — McCain’s wrong, he’s been wrong, and his vision for the future is ridiculously wrong. Too many Americans perceive him as competent and strong, based on little more than media myths and commercials.
Obama is talking to voters like they’re grown-ups, making the case for a more progressive, more coherent, and more effective approach to world affairs. I hope Americans are listening.