If Obama is wrong on terror, what do we do?

I disagree with Obama's current direction on terrorism. I think a "war" on terror is a pointless effort. I agree with the view that you cannot declare war on an idea or a tactic. Those responsible for 9/11 should not be given the imprimatur of "warrior" by setting the military on them. They are criminals, and the world's law enforcement institutions should have been given the task of hunting them down. Continuing to treat the al Queda forces as military opponents gives their cause a currency we are foolish to endorse.

Sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is more than dangerous; it's an opportunity to mire our nation in the same hell that helped destroy the Soviet Union. Has Queda grown that large that we require three additional battalions? Or is the prospect of fighting this battle in areas that overwhelmed the Soviets so daunting that we'll need to sacrifice this many troops? We will be fighting the wrong battle in the wrong manner, I fear. I'd much prefer to see this no longer the realm of the military, but I know that just isn't going to happen.

So I disagree with Obama, and this is no small area of disagreement (and I am sure that as soon as I publish this blog, he'll be awoken with the news of my opinion, for which I apologize). I doubt it's the last time I'll disagree with him. I am confident he will face the opposition of other supporters — and make no mistake, I support him as enthustiastically and unreservedly as anyone — over a variety of issues during his eight years in office. And the person who will most welcome and least fear that opposition?

Barack Obama.

As he wrote when he defended his FISA vote (a bad, wrong vote):

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Two things. One, he did not apologize for his vote. He did what he thought was right and best, and he stands by it. We can disagree with everything from his reasoning to his conclusions to his political considerations on this bill, but one thing we cannot do: Accuse him of ducking for cover. There are tens of millions of people who support him, and there's no way he can be in perfect agreement with all of them. For all the noise over FISA, it's probable that millions of Americans think he voted correctly on this bill. That's the nature of a representative democracy. If we think this vote, or the cumulative affect of all his votes, are bad enough — we don't vote for him.

Obviously, that's not my view. I think he got this vote wrong, but he is still, far and away, the best person to be the next president. And as president, the elements of legislation he deems insufficient will be replaced with better versions. If we give him a strong Congress in November, the frequency and scope of compromises will be much reduced. We can prevent bad bills being brought to his desk by electing progressive Democrats and by remaining involved in the political process throughout his term in office. If we support Obama as president with the energy and urgency we support him as nominee, we will empower him to act on our behalf.

If we send him to the White House and then think we've done all we can or should, we've made him a lame duck from day one. His failures will be our failures.