Yes, the Republicans have shown themselves more willing to engage in overseas hostilies in pursuit of the War on Terror than the Democrats have, or will.
Unfortunately, the Administration has not shown itself particularly adept at fighting the war. Iraq is not going well, and it could be going much better, had the Administration listened to professional advice given it from the start. The worst mis-steps have not been surprises.
So yes, certainly national security has to be on the table.
But again, the problem here is a comparison between what amounts to Democratic isolationism, and Republican military ineptitude. That is an unenviable choice. We shouldn't have to make it, but we do.
We are not talking about a comparison between brilliant competence and utter incompetence. Our choice is really between bumbling, marginal competence and isolationist cravenness.
National defense is no longer a slam-dunk Republican issue. Bush and Co. are no Reagan.
"Unfortunately, the Administration has not shown itself particularly adept at fighting the war. Iraq is not going well, and it could be going much better, had the Administration listened to professional advice given it from the start. The worst mis-steps have not been surprises."
I'm sure you will reveal the professional advice that was rejected.
I'll offer an idea. After WWII, the US didn't give Germany and Japan an unlimited amount of time to invent a "Constitution." We shoved ours down their throats, for the most part.