Democrats' dilemma over war on terror

Louise Branson, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

America's Democrats are gingerly testing the waters of opposition to President George W. Bush over the war on terrorism, suggesting that though it has so far gone well, there is little clear idea of where it is heading.

It is a politically perilous course. But they have no choice.

The Democrats' problem: President Bush is riding high in the polls on his patriotic, anti-terrorism message.

If this continues, his coat-tails could well bring major Republican gains in November's congressional elections. That, in turn, could give Bush and the Republicans a wide enough majority to push through his domestic and other programs.

The high stakes were clear last week as the first, very mild "shots" were fired by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

In respectful tones, he said that the war against al-Qaeda terrorists had been successful so far and he did not want to "second guess." But he suggested the administration needed to better explain where it was headed. In response, the Republicans have all but accused him of treason.

"How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field?" asked senior Republican Senator Trent Lott.

The exchanges highlighted the serious dilemma for the Democrats as well as America's critical political juncture.

It has long been a truism in America that "politics stops at the water's edge," meaning that both major parties put politics aside to stand united when the country takes military action overseas.

That has held true since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and during the subsequent American military intervention in Afghanistan.

But the clear suspicion among many Democrats is now emerging that the Bush administration is expanding the war on terrorism -- with joint operations already under way in the Philippines, Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia -- out of motives that extend well beyond Sept. 11 retaliation to domestic politics.

Another prominent and outspoken Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd, who chairs the Senate committee for defense appropriations, voiced these criticisms recently in the committee.

The Bush administration, he said, should not expect "blank checks to be written" without a clearer understanding of its objectives and goals beyond Afghanistan.

This comes against a background of growing complaints about the Bush administration's perceived authoritarian trend.

Members of Congress recently were shocked, too, to learn that a "parallel" government has been up and running in an undisclosed location for months, in case of a devastating blow to the real government in Washington.

If the war on terrorism continues to be the official focus of President Bush and his administration, and if Democratic objections do not resonate with the wider public, a Republican sweep of the November congressional elections seems a real possibility.

More importantly, the Democrats control the Senate -- where a third of the seats are up for re-election -- by just one seat.

That slimmest of edges has allowed the Democrats to set the agenda in the Senate and, recently, to defeat a Bush budget proposal.

It is one President Bush may avoid if the war on terrorism continues to keep his popularity high and the country both patriotic and focused more on the dangers of al-Qaeda than on the lingering recession or other domestic problems.