As such things are counted, this past weekend we crossed the threshold of four thousand U.S. deaths in Iraq. This fact, in itself, should spark congressional debate on what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, and how and when we are going to get out.

The Washington/pundit conventional wisdom since late last year has been that Iraq has receded as an issue, as a result of the "success" of the surge in reducing violence, or because the majority in Congress has given up on the idea of trying to force a change in course under the present administration, because there doesn't yet exist an effective Senate majority for any action which would force a change in course.

This misses a lot. It misses the fact that the "surge" has failed to produce national political reconciliation in Iraq, its stated goal. It misses the fact that reduced violence in Iraq (a welcome reduction to a still intolerable level) is as much, if not more, a result of the U.S. accord with part of the Sunni insurgency and the cease-fire of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, than of the increased deployment of U.S. troops. Regardless of what one thinks of these developments, they are essentially diplomatic and political rather than military developments, and could both easily unravel if there isn't significant progress towards political resolution of Iraq's conflicts, leaving us back in the situation that existed before the surge, many violent deaths ago.

The conventional wisdom also misses important facts about the role of congressional debate in our national political life, and the role of congressional debate in the process of policy change.

Congressional action and debate shapes press coverage, public opinion and even public knowledge. Consider the poll earlier this month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, "Awareness of Iraq War Fatalities Plummets."

It found that:

Public awareness of the number of American military fatalities in Iraq has declined sharply since last August. Today, just 28% of adults are able to say that approximately 4,000 Americans have died in the Iraq war. As of March 10, the Department of Defense had confirmed the deaths of 3,974 U.S. military personnel in Iraq.


In August 2007, 54% correctly identified the fatality level at that time (about 3,500 deaths). In previous polls going back to the spring of 2004, about half of respondents could correctly estimate the number of U.S. fatalities around the time of the survey.

Pew notes that "the drop in awareness comes as press attention to the war has waned." The percentage of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined since last summer.

The fall-off in press coverage has more than one cause, but a key cause was the abandonment of congressional debate. Congressional debate is an effect, but it is also a cause. And the abandonment of debate led to a self-fulfilling prophecy: by abandoning debate, Congress sent a signal to the news media that Iraq was as not important as it had been judged previously, the news media reduced coverage, the public became less-informed, and this contributed to the perception that Iraq was a less important issue.

Surely the fact that just over a quarter of American adults could say about how many Americans had been killed in Iraq represents an indictment of our media and the actions of our political leaders.

The conventional wisdom judged it reasonable for Congress to abandon debate when it proved unable to maintain a majority for effective action to force a change in course. There is a certain superficial logic to this: focus on what you can accomplish. But this misses the fact that the decision of Congress to debate or not to debate has consequences, even when effective action is beyond their immediate grasp. The Vietnam War was not ended all at once. There were many votes which were lost by opponents of the war, all of which contributed over time to the erosion of support which helped force the U.S. withdrawal. In a context in which the conventional wisdom is that Iraq is no longer an important issue, having a significant congressional debate would in itself be an important victory towards ending the war.


 
 

Comments
19
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Here's the problem with Congress taking action now. Both Democratic presidential candidates will have to vote. And Congress' history in attempting to legislate the war was so irresponsible, they have even less credibility than the president has. (and the president has very low credibility)

Never in my lifetime have I seen such derelict leadership in both houses of Congress. It is yet more proof that the left can provide dissent, but they can't lead. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 AM on 03/26/2008

If Congress had a debate on the 4,000 dead, they would have to admit they were wrong when they voted for the war, maybe even apologize to the nation and resign in disgrace. Don't hold your breath.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 03/25/2008

i tried, i really tried to feel something at the 4000 mark. i couldn't and didn't. And i am outraged by that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 03/25/2008

i tried, i really tried to feel something special at the 4000 mark. i couldn't and didn't. And i am outraged by that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 AM on 03/25/2008

A congressional debate?? Seriously? That bunch of freking losers? The same people who hold million dollar hearings on whether some baseball player used drugs???(paragraph) The same bunch who continually cave on what Chimpy McFlightsuit wants? The same bunch who can't figure out which way the publiic wants the war to go dispite HUGE polls telling what we want? The same bunch cowards who can't do shit for America?(Paragraph) I'd be willing to back anything they would do IF THEY WOULD DO IT!!! If they would simply start holding this criminal administration to THE LETTER OF THE LAW!, But they won't do it. (paragraph) BUT they won't and I cannot for the life of me figure out why they are such cowardly little bitches!! (Paragraph) IT'S TIME TO VOTE EVERY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE OUT AND PUT IN REAL DEMOCRATS!!(Paragraph) Arianna WHAT is up with the comments section?? Why is only the first paragraph being printed thus forcing people to write hard to read single paragraphs in order to get their comment across?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 AM on 03/25/2008

Debate? To quote someone more (in)famous than I, "SO?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:46 PM on 03/24/2008

400 deaths should have sparked it, as it was very apparent, at that point in the toll, that this whole thing was based on a lie. But with Reid and Pelosi, we will get nothing of the sort. They need to be replaced.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 03/24/2008

Before attacking congress, you should acknowledge the accomplishments they have made. They have named scores of post offices, may have exposed drug use in baseball, talked enough about the war to prove they know how we feel, taken impeachment off the table to save us an uncomfortable conversation, and there have been weeks where they have made two or three meaningless gestures in a row! They have shown in a bipartisan way that We the People are irrelevant, and some say they're not honest! They are warm and cozy in George's lap and they like it! Why should they make a big fuss over some scrap of two hundred twenty year old paper? I'm surprised they haven't cut it up to sell the signatures on EBay! Of course, we have the press to help us, and as soon as someone bleeds in a direction that helps the country they'll get right on that. I keep hearing from Clinton and Obama supporters that the other side is toast, I think they'll both be fine, it is our little experiment with Democracy that is TOAST!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 03/24/2008

"We, the People" are irrelevant. Why? Because we have the attention span of a radish. Pelosi was correct to take impeachment off the table because voters can't be trusted to cast a coherent vote. After 8 years of Clinton and an improving economy, we end up with a compassionate conservative who promised a more humble foreign policy....and proved it by remaining in his seat surrounded by eight year olds until he finished reading "My Pet Goat" after he was told the "Nation's under attack". What did voters do, they reelected him (Yeah, yeah, I know: Supreme Court, Diebold, 527s....) Bush should have lost big time in '04. But he didn't. Either democrat should be leading McInsame by 20 points in every poll, but they're not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 03/24/2008

What's the use of debating with the Republican *Sunni* obstructionist minority currently holding Congress hostage? We start a thoughtful debate and they'll immediately bludgeon us with all the old canards "If we leave the terrorists will win", "If we leave the soldiers' sacrifice will have been for nought", "Iraq is the central front of the war on terror" blah blah blah.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 03/24/2008
- Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Robert Naiman

response to StephenSmoliar: excellent point! The debate should be scheduled so that the three Senators running for President have no excuse not to participate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 03/24/2008

There is no certainty about the ability of the congress or the presidential candidates to find a reasonable or practical end to this tragedy. In fact, it is very clear that they will all decide to stay stuck in the middle of the river of events and avoid any responsibility for action. This is because we are down to the fact that we are faced with tragic choices for which nobody wants to be responsible. There is neither a winning scenerio nor a cost free exit. The failure is total and the worst is yet to come. Only a resolute and vocal public will will be able to move them to take responsibility and end this madness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 03/24/2008

There already IS intense debate about Iraq...every day, Democratic and Republican leaders debate ways to create great political theater out of the war...as our young men and women die gladiator-style to the crowd's cheers and boos.

The one issue that gets no serious debate, however, is whether or not we should continue this war. All three candidates for President are willing to supply unending amounts of our future taxpayer dollars to keep the meatgrinder running.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 03/24/2008

Meat grinder, i love the rhetoric of empassioned liberals. NO consideration for the most important people that support the war and those of us who support our victory. Our troops sign up and resign up for this meat grinder. 97% of US troops voted to reelect Bush duie to his decisions regading Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq did one very important thing. We drew millions of islamic extremists to their doom, instead of chasing them into the mountains of Afgahnistan or having more come down from our neighbor to our north. The fact that we have lost only 4k troops after 5 years is a testament to our troops military prowess and GW decision to invade Iraq and bring about and end to thousands of years of conflict. George Bush did a great thing, but your too educated to even know it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 03/24/2008

It should be on the front page every day. It should be the lead story on every news show.Instead of the horserace gossip and the sex life of Politicians being talked about 24/7 we should be screaming from the windows and marching in the streets to end this disaster.
We no longer have a free press.It is bought and owned by megacorps that profit from War.Look up Fascism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 03/24/2008

Absolutely right. This is the defining event of our era. To hear John McCain proclaim the Iraq debacle a "success" makes my heart race & blood boil. Success?? This is without question among the most consequential foreign policy disasters in American history. Iraq represents a staggering strategic setback for the US, with untold pernicioius consequences for (a) the domestic economy, (b) America's standing in the world, (c) balance-of-power politics in the Middle East and South and Central Asia. (Though ironically, and to my mind, diminished US capacity to influence events in these regions would prove a salutary development.) To hear McCain describe the Iraq war, this unmitigated disaster of historic proportions, as a "success" makes me wonder what planet I'm living on. Or what planet McCain and his ilk think they're living on. Honest to Pete.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 03/25/2008

First, one must find a congresscritter with even a smattering of courage, second... oh, never mind. You'll never accomblish the first step.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 03/24/2008

4000 young American men and women dead -- against the interests of the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead for no reason. Hundreds of thousands of maimed young Americans and Iraqis -- all for nothing.

And all 3 candidates from the major parties want to kill and maim even more -- as none will commit to immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors.

All 3 are useless, despicable, traitorous, barbaric murderers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 03/24/2008

Not only should there be a debate; but also our three would-be-Presidents should participate in it on the Senate floor, giving the rest of us the opportunity to see how they perform when dealing with this as part of their current "day job!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 03/24/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Robert Naiman›
 

 Site  Web ask.com