The comments of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other Democrats last week should have stimulated a responsible discussion about the direction of the war on terrorism, rather than the partisan mud fight Republicans sought to turn them into.
Daschle essentially made two points:
ïÝThe Afghanistan phase of the war on terrorism will not be a success unless and until Mullah Mohammed Omar and Osama bin Laden are killed or caught.
ïÝThe administration is expanding the war on terrorism without "a clear direction."
Daschle is wrong on the first point, but unfortunately correct on the second point.
The objective of the Afghanistan phase of the war on terrorism was to eliminate the country's use as a safe staging ground for attacks against the United States. That objective has been achieved.
There remains much to be done, as the recent fighting illustrates. And there are serious questions about what sort of ongoing U.S. involvement is necessary to keep Afghanistan from reverting.
But Afghanistan is no longer a place where the al-Qaida leadership can comfortably plot attacks against the United States and then laugh about the tragic results.
Daschle is making the same mistake the Bush administration made early in the war on terrorism: excessively personalizing the fight. Success is measured by the reduction of risks to the United States. Capturing or killing Omar and bin Laden would make the United States safer. But the United States can be made safer even if they remain elusive.
The military action in Afghanistan followed a discussion in Congress and passage of a resolution authorizing the use of force.
The authorization was directly tied to actions in pursuit of those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This linkage was overly restrictive. But it reflected the congressional consensus, and the Bush administration did not contest its limitation at the time.
The Bush administration is expanding the war on terrorism. The United States has been training anti-terrorist forces in the Philippines and is about to do so in Georgia. U.S. forces have reportedly scouted territory in other parts of the world in which terrorists operate.
Moreover, in his "axis of evil" State of the Union address, President Bush seemed to subsume into the war on terrorism the overlapping but distinguishable problem of hostile states acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has basically said that the need for the United States to precipitate a regime change in Iraq is a settled issue within the administration.
There has been no congressional discussion or approval of training indigenous anti-terrorist forces in other countries, or of what kind of threats to the United States should warrant such training. There certainly has not been any congressional discussion or approval of U.S. action to effectuate a regime change in Iraq.
Moreover, it is unclear the extent to which the Bush administration feels obligated to obtain such approval before taking action.
Since Sept. 11, the administration has consistently asserted an inherent presidential right to take action, as commander in chief, to defend the country. And certainly such a right exists.
But the administration has been purposely vague about the relationship between this executive branch right to act in self-defense with Congress' power to declare war.
The issues being raised by Democrats are legitimate and timely, and in keeping with the mores of a democracy at war.
Republican attempts to gain partisan advantage by depicting these comments as unpatriotic are not.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott issued a statement reading, in part, "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism . . . ?"
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer helpfully pointed out that Daschle is considering running for president in 2004. As is, presumably, Fleischer's boss.
A democracy at war remains a democracy, which means the conduct of the war is a legitimate topic of responsible discussion and debate.
Particularly among those whom the Constitution vests with the exclusive authority to declare war in the first place.
arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0306robb06.htmlE-mail this article