www.nationalinterest.org EDITOR : Nikolas K. Gvosdev • 1615 L Street, N.W. • Suite 1230 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • • (202) 467-4884 • Fax (202) 467-0006 • [email protected] • THE NATIONAL INTEREST Number 80 • Summer 2005 No part of this symposium may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transfered, distributed, altered or otherwise used, in any form or by any means, except: •one stored electronic and one paper copy of any article solely for your personal, non-commercial use; or • with prior written permission of THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THE NATIONAL INTEREST (ISSN 0884-9382) is published quarterly by the The National In- terest, Inc., with the cooperation of The Nixon Center. Contact THE NATIONAL INTEREST for further permission regarding the use of this work. Copyright © 2005 by The National Interest, Inc. All rights reserved. CHAIRMAN James R. Schlesinger PUBLISHER Dmitri K. Simes CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ian Bremmer Ted Galen Carpenter • Alexis Debat • John Hulsman • David B. Rivkin, Jr. • Paul J. Saunders • Ray Takeyh ADVISORY BOARD Morton Abramowitz • Graham Allison • Brian Beedham • Conrad Black • Robert F. Ellsworth • Martin Feld- stein • Fred C. Iklé • Daniel Pipes • Helmut Sonnenfeldt • Ruth Wedgwood • J. Robinson West • Dov Zakheim Untitled iKurt M. Campbell & Michael O’Hanloni OW COULD a decorated National security rightly emerged as war hero, experienced sena- the predominant issue of the 2004 elec- H tor and outstanding debater tion. Some 34 percent of the electorate lose a presidential race that turned largely cited either Iraq or the War on Terror as on national security issues to an incum- the policy issue of greatest concern, a bent who during his first term badly mis- significant jump from the twelve percent calculated both the urgency of the main that cited “world affairs” in 2000. Among war he pursued and the way to win the that 34 percent, sixty percent favored peace? And given some of the harsh reali- President Bush, with an overwhelming ties now facing the U.S. armed services, 86 percent of those most worried about particularly the protracted and dangerous terrorism favoring the incumbent. In the deployment to Iraq, how did Republicans electorate at large, about 58 percent said find their most loyal demographic, not they most trusted President Bush to among the Bible Belt voters of the South wage the War on Terror effectively, to and West or the wealthy businessmen Senator Kerry’s 40 percent. All this even along the coasts, but rather among U.S. though in nominating Senator Kerry, military members and a large percentage Democrats believed they were offering of the more than 25 million veterans? An- the country a viable alternative to a pres- swering these questions is critical to the ident who misdiagnosed the Iraqi threat, Democratic Party’s prospects as it looks went to war with a weak coalition and ahead to elections in 2006 and 2008. The failed to plan properly for the aftermath Democratic Party must reestablish its na- of invasion. tional security bona fides among key con- The recent election made clear, how- stituencies if it hopes to win back the ever, that there is profound anxiety over White House or Congress. how Democrats generally manage issues of war and peace. Party leaders’ instincts Kurt M. Campbell is senior vice president, director were wrong. Americans did not want the of the International Security Program and politics of antiwar protest. They wanted a Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security leader who convinced them he had a bet- at the Center for Strategic and International ter plan for the course of the nation at a Studies, and director of the Aspen Strategy crucial moment in its history. Group. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow in In a small but telling example of how Foreign Policy Studies and the Sydney Stein, the party tends to think about national Jr., Chair at the Brookings Institution. He also security, when Democrats thought they lectures at Princeton University. had a chance of winning the recent presi- The National Interest—iSummer 2005 93 dential elections, they got much more ex- Of Democrats and Soldiers cited about the topic of who should be Secretary of State than Secretary of De- NE STRIKING develop- fense. It was widely known that capable ment—dating back roughly individuals such as Richard Holbrooke O to the Reagan era—has been and Joseph Biden were interested in be- the growing identification of the Ameri- coming the nation’s top diplomat, and it can military culture with the Republican was obvious throughout the campaign Party and its increasing disenchantment how close both were to Senator Kerry— with Democrats. It is very true, of course, yet one struggles to recall a single name that the military vote (active-duty person- mentioned to run the Pentagon. As a mil- nel as well as reservists, civilian employees itary officer told one of us, “Don’t you and veterans) is not a monolithic group. find it surprising that at a time of war the These 30 million voters are not equally Democratic Party spends no time think- conservative politically nor equally in- ing about who the Secretary of Defense clined to factor military issues prominent- should be?” ly in their voting decisions. Yet a Military Especially in the post-9/11 context, Times survey released last September voters want to know that Democrats will showed President Bush the preferred can- have the backbone to attack America’s en- didate among active-duty military person- emies before they can strike the United nel by roughly 73 to 18, a staggering ratio States. And they want to be convinced found among reservists as well. More that Democrats know enough about the than 60 percent of today’s military leaders nation’s armed forces and the tough chal- self-identify as Republican, whereas less lenges of leadership to use military force than 10 percent call themselves Democ- effectively and decisively. In the last elec- rats. Overall, 59 percent of all military tion, Democrats as a party offered little personnel described themselves as Repub- more than international cooperation and licans in the September 2004 survey men- multilateralism as their prescription for tioned above, with 13 percent Democratic matters of national security. This was and 20 percent independent. The Repub- complemented by a “laundry list” ap- lican advantage is not nearly so stark proach to national security policy, pre- among veterans, but even within this cat- senting a broad agenda addressing energy egory, Republicans hold a two-to-one independence, civil conflicts, HIV/AIDS, edge (46 to 22) among veterans who are Mideast peace and other matters. These “civilian leaders” and a six point edge (37 are important, to be sure, but an effective to 31) among the veteran population at and well-communicated approach to the large. In the end, among the 18 percent of “hard” security problems of the day was the population with military experience, lacking. It is too early to tell if this prob- 57 percent voted for Mr. Bush to 41 per- lem has been rectified under the party’s cent for Mr. Kerry. (By contrast, Bill current leadership, but all Democrats, Clinton polled equally to George H. W. even those whose hearts are primarily in Bush among military veterans in 1992.) energy or trade or development policy, Certainly there are myriad factors need to recognize that they cannot cobble that explain the overwhelming Republi- together a winning platform from various can tilt in the military’s political prefer- bits and pieces—a military pay raise here, ences. A high percentage of recruits come a call for multilateralism there. Democ- from rural or “red state” America; reli- rats must have a comprehensive, credible gious observance in the military is higher approach to national security that res- than the national norm among civilians, at onates with the military vote. a time when the Democrats are seen in- 94 The National Interest—iSummer 2005 creasingly as the country’s more secular needed for the job, failed to procure the party; Republicans are associated with armor needed to protect troops in the support for large defense budgets. And field and wound up deploying troops at Democrats have also needlessly aggravat- far greater paces than almost any military ed their own problems. In 2004, following specialist thought advisable or Howard Dean’s example from the year sustainable.2 Despite these serious gaffes before, they more often than not chose in the current administration’s defense angry antiwar rhetoric over a debate on policy over the last few years, predictions future foreign policy vision or current na- that the Republican sway over the mili- tional security challenges. This was indul- tary vote would diminish in the 2004 elec- gence in emotion over analysis, in Bush tion were not fulfilled. bashing over solid political strategizing. This was compounded by the think- The Clinton Legacy ing among Democratic political strate- gists that national security was not a key F COURSE, the problems issue for Democratic voters. Former DNC did not begin with 2004. Chairman Terry McAuliffe epitomized O John Kerry and John Ed- this thinking when he indicated that na- wards had the misfortune of running as tional security was a subject where De- Democrats after their party had been per- mocrats had only to “check the box” be- ceived as the weaker of the two parties on fore moving on to issues they preferred to national security for more than a genera- discuss. This attitude was even less defen- tion. Democrats need to challenge this sible in 2004 than in 2000 (when top perception. strategists reportedly counseled Vice Setting the Clinton Administration’s President Al Gore to avoid national secu- record straight is the first place to start.