I'll see your military and raise you two massive deficits - budgetary and trade

Andrew is arguing that it's good for the country to have the democrats finally figure out National Security^tm. However noble the goal, it's interesting to note that Andrew uses a completely false allegation against Sandy Berger to frame his larger point regarding Iraq and all the heavy lifting the Republicans have done in that effort. (update: Andrew corrected this).

In Andrew's argument, he requires a number of assumptions that I think are completely unwarranted. It is completely unclear, for example, that Iraq actually did anything at all to make us safer with respect to the global war on terrorism. In fact, I would claim we're actually worse off in many actual metrics that are easy to measure and people universally agree on their import.

Now that we know there never were any WMDs, nor were any connections with Al Qaeda ever shown, we are simply left with the purple finger and the faith that the dominoes will fall for freedom across the Middle East. Perhaps Andrew thinks that the 100+ Iraqis that died this week shows how strong our position is and how weak the insurgents position is.

Of course I could go on about how we got into this position in the first place. But my point is that if Iraq is the model Andrew is holding out as the gold standard to be compared against, then I think if we had actually done nothing about Iraq but fight for the status quo (fierce inspections + no fly zones + strengthening embargo) then we'd be measurably ahead in the global WOT.

I think it's hard to argue that any democrat would have not stood on ground zero and comforted the people. I think it's equally hard to argue that any democrat would not have not invaded Afghanistan. I think you can definitely argue that democrats wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

And considering the way Iraq has been handled, I can't imagine that anyone would want to claim responsibility for it. To use it as a club to beat the democrats senseless with - regardless of how well intentioned the though is - seems unwarranted. The incompetence in the prosecution of the war is obvious and astounding to behold.

Perhaps the democrats have a problem with National Security^tm and we need to get on board about it. But considering we nominated a decorated veteran who ran a hard campaign against a NATO general, it seems an insupportable premise that the democrats aren't serious about national security.

I believe it was Clinton's army that won Afghanistan and Iraq. And lets not forget the number of nation building excursions during Clinton's regime - one's that the right opposed and ridiculed. I seem to recall that GW, himself, ran against Nation Building^tm in 2000. Maybe I'm just not seeing the subtlety, being a civilian, and missing something basic. But this is sure how it looks from outside the military and from the left side of the fence.

Democrats don't have anything to be ashamed about with respect to National Security^tm. We're human - to be sure. But at least we didn't kill 1464 soldiers, wound thousands and spend 300 billion dollars creating far, far, FAR more terrorists than we had before the Iraq war.

I mean, really.