It’s that time again – a presidential election year. As Americans across the nation gear up for a period of intense democracy, we at the University also are beginning to experience the whirlwind of presidential politics.

Across campus, people already are espousing their different political views on everything, such as health care reform and the Iraq War.

As a freshman, this is my first election year on a college campus, and as a member of the Roosevelt Institution, a public policy think tank, I’m not disappointed with the experience thus far. Yet, I can’t help noticing one particular issue is conspicuously absent from the political chatter: national security.

How quickly we forget.

In stark contrast to the 2004 election, which digressed into a debate over which candidate was more masculine, and therefore more qualified to fight terrorism, the issue of national security remains a peripheral question at most. Instead, opinion polls suggest that the looming economic downturn, the Iraq War, illegal immigration and other domestic issues weigh heavily on Americans’ minds.

In a global world in which economic stability rests upon the U.S.’s ability to protect its citizenry, and given the massive failures of President George W. Bush’s administration’s “Global War on Terror,” I find it incredulous that security strategy does not receive more attention.

Not everyone, however, remains obtuse.

In a recent visit to the University, national security expert Stephen Flynn discussed his views on the ideal strategy. According to Flynn, who worked for both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, the current Bush administration’s failures began immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, when the president introduced his “Global War on Terror.”

I couldn’t agree more.

In the two years after Sept. 11, Bush’s hard-line rhetoric and hawkish policies led to an overreaction against the terrorist threat, causing the U.S. to initiate two expensive military campaigns which spread our forces dangerously thin and fueled anti-American sentiments abroad. As a result, the U.S.’s relative power – that is, the U.S.’s global influence relative to other nations – is decreasing.

What’s more, Americans now live in a world of fear and uncertainty, largely due to the administration’s practice of routinely injecting fear into the public to gain political support. The creation of a national security index, which predicts the likelihood of a future attack without providing specific information, leaves Americans feeling powerless to defend themselves. It sends the message, “Don’t ask questions. We will take care of you.”

The problem with this strategy, as Flynn noted, is two-fold.

First, Bush’s insistence that Americans go about their normal lives despite our involvement in a “global war” constitutes a failure to mobilize the entire nation.

During World War II, the U.S.’s greatest advantage over the Axis was the resilience of its people. Day in and day out, they labored in factories to help the Allies out-produce the Axis powers, thereby winning the “war of attrition.” The Bush administration, on the other hand, has failed to tap America’s greatest resource: the American people.

Second, the culture of fear and the precedence for unilateral military action makes Americans more likely to overreact in the event of a future terrorist attack – something America simply cannot afford, as these overreactions are the exact outcome terrorists desire.

Looking ahead, the next president will need to foster a “culture of resilience” in order to defeat radical Islamists. Reacting calmly or even obtusely to terrorism is the best strategy, and future leaders must ensure that Americans understand this.

So, in the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday and the final primary elections, let’s not forget about national security, and, especially, the failures of President George W. Bush’s “Global War on Terror.”

- Rocky Cole is a freshman from Kennesaw majoring in international affairs and political science. He is a member of the Roosevelt Institution.