If nothing else, the '06 election promises a lively back-and-forth on the war and national security.

There will be excesses. Democrats will accuse the GOP of fear-mongering while crying at every opportunity, "We're not safe! Everything's worse!" Republicans will hint that Democrats can't be trusted with national security, and hope voters don't notice the violence in Baghdad.

But there should still be plenty of opportunity to see where the parties and candidates stand. That was evident last week, starting with the Sen. Rick Santorum-Bob Casey Jr. matchup on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 3 and continuing with President Bush's speeches and Democratic rebuttals.

The Senate candidates from Pennsylvania were almost a preview of what the week would bring. Santorum made his case that Iraq was just one front in a larger war against Islamo-fascism (earning him a "Hitler" comparison from a now-contrite union official). Casey, though not favoring a withdrawal timetable, said he would demand accountability from the president.

Bush came out swinging against withdrawal Monday, in the second of a recent series of speeches to build support for the war. He used the words of al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Iranian leaders to show the disaster that awaits Iraq and the region should U.S. troops leave before the government can defend itself. Among the goals of al-Qaida in Iraq that Bush cited: "Expel the Americans ...establish an Islamic authority ... extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq ... clash with Israel."

Wednesday he disclosed the CIA prisons and the transfer of top terror leaders to Guantanamo Bay, challenging Congress to endorse military commissions for these detainees. Thursday he outlined how efforts such as the terrorist surveillance program, the Patriot Act and other security and finance initiatives were succeeding against al-Qaida — a thesis partially supported by James Fallows in his article "Declaring Victory" in the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

The Democrats also were busy. Their House and Senate leaders sent a letter to Bush on Monday urging "new directions" on Iraq policy: (1) transition the U.S. mission "to counterterrorism, training, logistics, and force protection"; (2) begin "phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year"; (3) "disarm the militias" and develop a "sustainable political settlement"; (4) convene international conference to support a political settlement, preserve Iraqi sovereignty, and revitalize reconstruction. (In reply, the White House noted it was already doing 1, 3 and 4 but wouldn't consider 2 until conditions warranted withdrawals.) On Thursday, Democrats unveiled the "Real Security Act of 2006," repeating their call for a new course in Iraq and urging policy changes in intelligence, surveillance, terror-suspect trials, and homeland security.

Overall, a respectful and respectable start to the campaign season. However, voters will need more answers before Nov. 7:

Democrats will have to explain how redeployment (the enemy will say "retreat") will help our democratically elected allies during their time of crisis and what message we'll be sending to friends and foes in the region. Will Afghanistan be next if the enemy there is as tough as in Iraq?

And Bush can't just say we have to stay. He has to explain how we'll do it. What troop levels or other resources are required, not to hang on and watch conditions deteriorate but to achieve the victory he's been calling for? If there are no more troops available, and we expect to stay in Iraq at least through the Bush years, do we increase the size of the military? If Syria and Iran are contributing to our casualties, why aren't they being held accountable?

Please include answers in the next round of speeches and press releases.

Kevin Ferris is commentary page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.