We keep losing terrorism as an issue because we don't have an actual position on it. Seriously - think about it.

George Bush's position on terrorism is simple: We gotta kick some ass. We got attacked, so now you can be damned sure we're going to hit back at anyone who even
looks at us funny. We will kill our enemies.

In such stark terms, I think that position makes most liberals - at least anti-war liberals - pretty uncomfortable. But it's important to recognize that is a rational reaction, a legitimate course of action, and a solution to the problem that is pretty easy for most folks to understand.

Liberals don't have a coherent response to terrorism that could be described in any of those ways. We're sort of vaguely anti-Iraq War, but in my experience our opposition is usually couched in specific ways the specific operation will fail, not in a coherent anti-terrorism strategy. "Saddam didn't attack us," while true, isn't really enough because it does not offer an affirmative response to the terrorist threat.

But what does the liberal response to terrorism look like? Frankly, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I think it would include at least a few things:

• If you attack us, we will hit back.

  I have been struggling in recent years to square my pacifism with the notion that 3,000 Americans were murdered in one of the most brutal ways imaginable. I still shed tears over what happened on September 11. If we are to win the hearts and minds of anyone, we need to have a strong response to terrorists that kill innocent people. We will hunt you down. We will kill you. We are prepared to face Judgment Day with that stain on our souls.

  I really think the last bit there is the important aspect we can add to the "Kick Ass for America" sentiment. Whenever George Bush talks about war, I never feel like he has any idea of the gravity of the situation. We've killed thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis since 9/11. Their blood is on our hands. It is not a proud time to be an American. But in some cases, I believe we must be ready to be stronger that our enemies. I'd love to not have to kill them. But I'm not sure that can work.

• Our goal must not be to break terrorists, but rather it must be to fix terrorism.

  Simply put, we owe it to ourselves to figure out what strategies actually reduce terrorism practiced against Americans (and all peace-loving people, for that matter.) I think at this point, we can safely say that invading a corrupt Arab dictatorship DOES NOT reduce terrorism. We must be laser-focused on those strategies that DO reduce terrorism. And if that means subsidies for every unemployed young male on the West Bank, so be it.

• The CIA must reform. Without intelligence, we cannot stop terrorism before it happens.

  Too much of the recent squabbles over reforming out intelligence system have been over who controls what pot of money. There has been virtually zero discussion of how dismally the Community has performed recently. We absolutely should have had operatives within al Qaeda years ago. Without them, we cannot expect to know about terrorist attacks soon enough to stop them. Think about it - the CIA has been looking for Osama bin Laden for 3 years and hasn't found him. This is unacceptable.
  

Beyond that, I'm not sure what else goes into the liberal response to terrorism. Please use the comments to add your thoughts.

Additionally, I'm not sure how we sell it to the American people. "Kicking ass for America!" is a damned compelling ideology to compete with. We need three words that convey our entire platform. However, liberal's dismal use of language is tomorrow's blog post.