You may have wondered why in my prior post I insisted that the most urgent agenda item for the Democrats is to articulate a strong, clear, disciplined alternative vision to the Bush Admin in foreign policy. I would enlarge that claim to include like-thinkiing Republicans (both traditional internationalists and traditional conservatives).

I draw your attention to the post-election checklist for the foreign policies of Bush II. Prepared by one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the neo-conservative vision and agenda, and appearing in Friday's National Review Online, it merits careful study. The list, part of an article by Frank Gaffney, is published in its entirety below. Since the purpose of its original publication was undoubtedly to maximize its broad dissemination, we will assist Mr Gaffney in his distribution efforts.

The important thing now, of course, is not simply to acknowledge past achievements [sic], but to build upon them. This will require, among other things:

• The reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq — a necessary precondition not only to holding elections there next year, but to the establishment of institutions essential to a functioning and stable democracy;
• Regime change — one way or another — in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining "Axis of Evil" states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions;
• Providing the substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of intelligence "reforms" contemplated pre-election that would make matters worse on this and other scores) while we fight World War IV;
• Providing, to the fullest extent possible, for the protection of our homeland — including the adoption of sensible policies on securing our borders and contending with illegal aliens, and by deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore;
• Keeping faith with Israel, whose destruction remains a priority for the same people who want to destroy us (and for the same reasons — i.e., our shared, "moral values") — especially in the face of Yasser Arafat's demise and the inevitable, post-election pressure to "solve" the Mideast problem by forcing the Israelis to abandon defensible boundaries;
• Contending with the underlying dynamic that made France and Germany so problematic in the first term: namely, their willingness to make common cause with our enemies for profit, and their desire to employ a united Europe and its new constitution — as well as other international institutions and mechanisms — to thwart the expansion and application of American power where deemed necessary by Washington;
• Adapting appropriate strategies for contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America.

It's clear that Gaffney's article is an advocacy piece -- a call to arms to George Bush personally and to those of his supporters who would tell his risk-averse handlers "let George be George." It has not been negotiated and agreed to with representatives of the Bush II Admin. Like pieces by Ralph Reed or other members of the Christian Right, it's a public marker of what Bush's hard-core supporters expect him to deliver. But given the close relationship of Gaffney and his fellow neo-cons with senior level members of the foreign policy and national security apparatus of Bush I, this is not the wishlist of outsiders gazing hungrily within now they have increased their clout via their ballot box power. This is a checklist of actions that they see as part and parcel of the policies of Bush I.

These items do not represent some sort of neocon "imperialist" game plan. Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.

None of these priorities will be easy or painless. All will require of President Bush a readiness to incur political costs and to assume risks far in excess of those his handlers were comfortable running before the election.

Yet President Bush has amply demonstrated his willingness to take such risks. More to the point, he appears to fully appreciate that his values, America's long-term strategic interests, and his electoral mandate allow him to do no less.

By redoubling his administration's efforts along these lines, President George W. Bush will not only be making the world less dangerous for America and her vital interests. He will also be doing so in a way that is consistent with our country's moral values, the stuff of which history — not just consequential elections and presidencies — is made.