Now that the Democrats have won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in Tuesday's midterm congressional elections, they will be stepping into a challenging national security environment: The war in Iraq continues, with the prospect for civil war looming large there and Afghanistan is entering a critical six months that could make or break stability there.

The challenges present an opportunity for the Democrats to shed some of the national security baggage that has plagued the party and defined the last 15 national and midterm U.S. elections. But it is also a political minefield as they may now be held responsible for the very problems for which voters have been blaming the Bush administration and Republicans.

"The Democrats should try to agree with Bush this year at least to forge a consensus for one last shot at (a unified U.S. policy) Iraq. The U.S. Democratic Party has suffered the last 30 years from a reputation -- fair or not -- that they are soft on national security," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C.

"We should together give Iraqis an ultimatum -- make needed reforms or see America's commitment decline. Bush won't like the possibility of having to cut back, (presumptive Speaker of the House Nancy) Pelosi (D-Calif.) won't like the possibility of having to cooperate with the president even temporarily, but it's the best chance of a successful policy for the country," O'Hanlon said.

Rand Beers, who was a National Security Council special assistant for terrorism to President George W. Bush, quit the NSC just three days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Eight weeks later he volunteered to be a national security adviser for 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Beers is now president of the National Security Network, a foreign policy think tank.

Beers told United Press International that an ascendant Democratic Party would have three priorities: to demonstrate a change in course in Iraq, strengthen the U.S. military and "combat terrorism in a robust way."

"We're likely to see these priorities take the following forms. To change direction in Iraq, Democrats will work with military leaders look at all of the plans on the table," Beers said. "Whatever plan emerges will most certainly include a phased redeployment of U.S. troops, incentives for the Iraqis to make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and an international conference to build support for Iraq's transition."

To strengthen the military, the Democrats should fully fund the resetting of U.S. forces -- a multi-year, multi-billion project, he said.

"Investments in manpower and equipment will also be on the table, as will fulfillment of pay and healthcare guarantees for troops, veterans, and military families," Beers said.

Third, they will shift the war on terror to focus "on finishing the job in Afghanistan, increasing capabilities and confronting underlying causes."

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a public-policy think tank in Arlington, Va., issued a four-point plan for the Democrats to implement after winning control of the House. But rather than a prescription for action, it is a list of what not to do.

"They have two years to convince voters that their party can be entrusted with the nation's security before a new president is elected in 2008," Thompson wrote in a statement issued Monday. "Here are four mistakes they need to avoid if they want to win that contest:

"Don't force a quick pullout of troops from Iraq." That is liable to leave the country in chaos and embolden insurgents, he warned.

"Unless Democrats have some secret plan for pacifying Iraq, the politically astute thing to do is let the White House keep running the war while Democrats urge an accelerated turnover of peacekeeping responsibilities to indigenous forces," he wrote.

"Don't cut weapons without seeking the military's advice." Weapons plants are staffed by union members who are inclined to vote Democratic in the coming presidential election if they are not alienated by the loss of their jobs, Thompson wrote. Some on the left are already counseling the cancellation of weapons systems built in Missouri and Pennsylvania.

"Why hand Republicans this issue when it is obvious soldiers and airmen know what they need better than the pundits do?" he wrote.

"Don't play politics with key committee assignments," Thompson wrote. He was referring to the controversy over whether Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., will take over the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or if it will go to Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fl., the African-American representative and impeached former federal judge who is backed by the Congressional Black Caucus. Hastings is next in line if Pelosi passes over Harman.

"People in the intelligence community are already talking about 'circling the wagons' if Harman doesn't get the job," Thompson wrote.

Finally, Thompson counseled the Democrats to avoid a pitfall of the Bush administration, which saw its Iraq policy heavily influenced by academics.

"Don't rely on academic theorists when real experts are available," he wrote. "If Democrats want to be credible on defense, they need to leave the professors at home and turn to military personnel who have real-world experience with the demands of modern warfare."

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
News and analysis about the Global War Against Terror at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
The Long War - Doctrine and Application

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News