The current debate on financing military operations in Iraq ... stimulated yet again my 30-year search for a national security policy that liberal and progressive Americans can endorse.

The great 20th century Democratic presidents were war presidents. Woodrow Wilson involved the U.S., against isolationist pressures, in World War I. Franklin Roosevelt overcame deep Republican isolationist sentiments, with the help of Pearl Harbor, to engage our country in World War II. Harry Truman defined the Cold War and fought in Korea. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in varying degrees, adopted the domino theory in Southeast Asia.

As recently as 1976, Robert Dole referred to the Democratic Party as the war party. But it was the Vietnam War that ended the New Deal/Great Society age of Roosevelt and divided the nation and the Democratic Party. Since then, public opinion surveys have consistently given Republicans a substantial edge on national security concerns. And that edge gave us the age of Reagan and Bush.

As an early and vigorous opponent of the second Gulf War and constant critic of its folly, I believe liberal and progressive forces must do more than merely demand its immediate cessation. The confusion in Democratic ranks is caused by the clear public insistence that we withdraw and the knowledge that Democrats cannot continue to be seen as anti-defense and anti-military.

This problem description excerpted from "What It Means to be Secure," originally published on HuffingtonPost.com on May 28, 2007.