War v Defending America: Democrats Want to Defend America & All Republicans Want is War

Here is a repost of a January 2005 >k9disc Invisible Man Special:
Truman's National Security Act of 1947 gave us a new cabinet level official: The Secretary of Defense.

Given the fact that the Administration keeps comparing our situation in this new milennium to WWII, and that we have a cabinet level Homeland Security Department, I propose that we bring back the War Department, and the title of Secretary of War, and let the Department of Homeland Security take over the necessary job of National Defense.

After all, can anyone doubt that Rumsfeld is a Secretary of War?

Calling the War Department the Defense Department allows for our leaders, on both the right and left, to conduct military operations without talking about war. The label of Defense Department acts as an antiseptic to the American people's understanding of military operations, and it also places our leaders in a rhetorically superior position when it comes to asking our people to flex our military muscles for National Defense, or for defense of our National Interests

Outside of those who have served our country in wartime, the American people have little understanding of the realities of war. Just look at the numbers of dead in the 2 World Wars (WWI and WWII).

Here is a graphical representation of WWII deaths. This is what World War looks like.

I believe that the unbelievable numbers of dead in those wars are the main reason for the difference between the 'stomach' for war in the US and the lack of 'stomach' for war in Europe. I also believe that the Orwellian use of National Defense and the Defense Department contribute to our proclivity for war.

I would like to see a movement, led by the blogosphere, to recapture the lost vocabulary of reality when it comes to the War Department. I believe it is of the utmost importance as our President stands in front of us and asks us to support him and his war against ter...umm, I mean, tyranny. [2006 rhetoric correction - it's terror again]

We cannot let him impose 'freedom' by force within the context of 'defense'. When our military is engaged to impose freedom, as in Iraq, it is war, and to call it 'defense' is dishonest and dangerous.

New Stuff for 2006
Rabid Republicans, LIEberman (table for 1?) and the corporate freedom posse want us to believe that the necessary, realistic and responsible end of the occupation of Iraq is a disaster in terms of our national security.

This argument is a lie that we cannot allow to stand.

There is plenty of evidence that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made us quite a bit more insecure (I'll depend on comments to flesh out that bit of the puzzle.), and have little to do with defending Americans.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, and diplomatic and material support to Israel have little to do with policies of national Defense. They are policies of War.
A country at war is inherently insecure.
The war frame has been the only frame that we have been allowed to think in terms of foreign, domestic, and constitutional policy for the last 5 years, and Democrats are still stuck within that frame, refusing to get out of it for fear of being soft on defense or weak on national security.

* Democrats believe that Defending America entails more than war.
* Democrats believe that Perpetual War will not make America safe.
* Democrats believe that we should stop making war and start protecting America.

The war frame also negates discussion on any and all of the byproducts of war:
* Reduced education spending
* reduced infrastructure spending
* catastrophic debt
* Crushing costs
* losing civil liberties
* lost respect internationally
* wasted resources

The Republicans running the show have been selling the war in the Defending America frame and defending the catastrophic results in the War frame. We must not let them have it both ways.

When we start talking about defending America, and stop talking about the war on terror, we can reach people.

We need to call out the War Department, the War President and the War Party, possibly adding Perpetual as a modifier: Perpetual War Department, Perpetual War President, Perpetual War Party.

Republicans want war.
Democrats want to Defend America.

Who are you going to vote for?