When, during the second Democratic presidential debate, Ex-Sen. John Edwards refused to acknowledge the existence of the War on Terror, what he really was denying, he has since said, is the Bush Doctrine Of Terror, which he claims is nothing but a politically pernicious chimera -- at best a set of military tactics and at worst a collection of domestic scare tactics. So Edwards has proposed what he calls a "strategy" to combat terror, which, he acknowledges, exists.
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political “frame,” it’s been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It’s even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents “weak on terror,” they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.
A backgrounder sent around by Edwards's campaign included this sentence:
As commander-in-chief, Edwards will employ a more effective strategy to hunt down those who would threaten us, including Islamic extremists, and to shut down terrorism where it starts—in weak and failing states, which breed instability and radicalism. Edwards will:
In other words, Edwards is divorcing the concept of the "War on Terror" from the "war on terror."
Here is the Edwards "strategy":
- Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
- Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
- Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
- Create a “Marshall Corps” to stabilize weak and failing states
- Rebuild equipment
- Create a National Security Budget
The centerpiece of Edwards's plan is his "Marshall Corps," a force of 10,000 civillians and military professionals who would stabilize weakening and failed states.
Today, as noted below, Mitt Romney urged a "new course" for the War on Terror (he's ok with the capitlization), and proposed a "strategy" in place of tactics. And he has called for a "a new type of Marshall plan" that kinda seems to do what Edwards's Marshall Corps would do.
An Edwards campaign aide was incredulous. Are the two plans really that far apart? Was Romney's criticism of Edwards justified, given that their approaches seem similar?
I asked Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden. He IMed: "Edwards chose to illuminate his naivete by saying thatthere was no war on terror. Governor Romney made it a point to recognize just how serious the challeneges are that we face and introduce his plan for combating radical jihadists around the globe."
"If anything," Madden continued, "they are polar opposites."
Certainly, Romney seems to support the Bush Doctrine where Edwards finds it a fake, although Romney suggests significant modifications and implicitly criticizes its lack of strategic vision. He identifies the threat more clearly that Edwards does: "radical jihadists."
One gets the sense that Romney's military would be more aggressive than Edwards's military. And their points of departure are totally different. For one thing, Edwards would pull out of Iraq, pronto. Romney wouldn't. Edwards opposes the Bush administration's NSA wiretapping regime; Romney supports it.
But without more detail from both men, I can't really predict how President Romney would handle any gathering terror threat differently than President Edwards would. Again, I -- we -- only have our gut sense, which is informed by our partisan inclinations, our experiences, and our perception of what makes these men tick.
That's why a candidate's characterological attributes are so important to presidential elections. They help us put their policies into context and provide us with a vantage point from which to evaluate their promises and approaches.
