Ignoring Iraq: Why Has it Become the Forgotten Issue of the '08 Race?
"What if the United States were at war during a presidential election -- and none of the candidates wanted to talk about it?" Good question. It was asked by Noah Feldman in this week's New York Times Magazine. And Time is running a story this week asking: "Will Iraq Return as a Campaign Issue?"
Bush's escalation of troops is now one year old. When it was launched, we were told that the purpose of the so-called surge was to help bring about political reconciliation in Iraq. Clearly, that has not come about.
Yes, a bill designed to reverse Paul Bremer's disastrous policy of de-Baathification just passed the Iraqi parliament. But that's the first of the political benchmarks on which there has been any progress at all. And as Juan Cole explains, it's as likely to further sectarian strife as reduce it.
But the traditional media have bought into the "the surge is working" meme hook, line, and sinker. Time talks about "the success of the U.S. military surge, and "the 'good news' of the surge." And during the pre-New Hampshire Democratic debate, Charlie Gibson repeatedly tried to get the candidates to agree that serious progress has been made. "Are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?" he all but demanded.
Along with propagating the "surge is working" myth, reporters have hit on a new way of diminishing the importance of the war: pretend like no one cares about it anymore, like it's old news. And they have the poll numbers to prove it! (And we've all seen how accurate poll numbers can be.)
The economy "is now issue of concern number one," announced Wolf Blitzer on Sunday. "More than the war in Iraq, more than the war on terror, more than health care. The economy is the highest concern for Americans, according to our most recent poll." CNN pollster Bill Schneider backed him up: "The number one issue to both Democrats and Republicans is now the economy, clearly in first place over the war in Iraq."
This finding allowed Andrea Mitchell to nostalgically trot out a moldy oldie from 1992. "Remember 'It's the economy, stupid'?" asked Andrea Mitchell over the weekend. "Sixteen years later, the candidates have finally figured out voters are more worried about the economy than Iraq or anything else."
The problem is that even if you want to go strictly by the poll numbers, they are not at all as clear cut as the media would have you believe. Turns out, for example, that the CNN poll separates "the war in Iraq" from "terrorism" -- a ludicrous division, no matter how you feel about the war.
Bush has spent over five years trying to convince us that Iraq is the central battlefront in the war on terror. And opponents of the war point out how Iraq has shifted the focus -- and precious national security resources -- away from fighting terrorism while serving as a prime terrorist recruiting tool. Any way you slice it, Iraq and Terrorism are inextricably linked.
So the CNN poll, which has the economy at 35%, would have Iraq/Terrorism at 34% -- a far cry from the storyline being put out by the media.
A CBS/New York Times poll taken around the same time found a similar result: 25% of those surveyed rated Iraq/Terrorism the most important problem facing America, compared to 23% for Economy/Jobs.
It's a vicious cycle. The candidates treat Iraq as if it's not something that needs to be front and center in the campaign; the media use cloudy poll numbers to reinforce the perception. This in turn reinforces the candidates' resolve to shove the war to the backburner. And, for some reason, Barack Obama (who opposed the war) and John Edwards (who has apologized for his initial support of it) seem as comfortable with this shrunken focus on Iraq as Hillary Clinton (whose stance on the war remains a vulnerability).
But ignoring Iraq would be a disaster for the Democrats -- whoever their nominee turns out to be. Pushing Iraq aside and ceding national security to the GOP while focusing on domestic and economic concerns is the exact game plan the party power-brokers convinced John Kerry to follow in 2004. And we all know how well that turned out.
Democrats need to start talking about Iraq and terrorism again -- and about how the war has made us less safe and less effective in fighting terrorists -- and not shut up about it until the first Tuesday in November.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
It is absurd to think that Iraq and the economy are not related. Iraq is the economy. A poll is only as good as the questions.
Good point! It would seem that Americans could make the connection between our failing economy and the cost of Dubya's legacy in Iraq.
For years the Republicans have used the Iraq war as a political tool to intimidate Democrats. It's time Democrats use that same tool to their advantage. A bevy of issues can be tied to Iraq. For example:
The high cost of gas = Iraq.
No universal health care = Iraq.
Massive debt = Iraq.
Weakend military = Iraq.
America's poor image overseas = Iraq.
Recession = Iraq.
No Osama bin Laden = Iraq.
Democratic candidates need to make this case now, to repeatedly remind voters of all the dire consequences that Iraq has brought us. Then when warmonger John McCain takes the stage, it wont be so easy for him to wrap the flag and the war around himself.
There's just one problem with this plan. Of the three viable Democratic candidates, only one of them spoke out against the war from the start. And Clinton refuses to apologize for her support of the Iraq war. How ironic it would be if Romney or Huckabee were elected, and they pointed the finger at Clinton for all the problems that her vote for the Iraq war has brought us.
I recall recently reading there was going to be an election year push to somehow kill/capture Bin Laden. Won't matter how many American boys will have to die for the RNC to get the best election year 'spin' they can on the war. I predicted awhile ago once the election cycle starts up Iraq was going to drop out of the news cycle. It used to be there would be daily reports about the dead and wounded coming out of Iraq, then it was just about the dead coming out, now there's no mention at all. You'd think there weren't any casualties from the press. The well known blogger who was killed recently (and made hardly an institutional press ripple) put a lie to that fiction.
The media focuses on the petty parts of the Democratic race for the nomination because, by and large, the media is comprised of petty lazy cynical bastards who think it's fun to talk and argue about all the nonsense, rather than help inform the public about what the candidates really stand for.
That's why, by and large, the media wants Hillary to win. Because with Hillary out there, there is plenty of fun, gossippy stuff to write about without ever getting off your ass and figuring out what's really going on. When Hillary said it was all well and good what Dr. King did, but it took a President to get things done, that wasn't racist! Was it? Wasn't it? How could it be! Well I never! This is Hillary Clinton, wife of the blackest white man ever to be President! When the President of BET alluded to Obama in the 'hood, he was not alluding to Obama and cocaine!
My ass!
Such fun for the press. Why should it ever stop. Hillary for President!
The problem is not what Hillary says -- the problem is that she leads the news, virtually every day, with her nonsense, and the press follows gleefully. If lazy cynical bastards can be said to be "gleeful".
The root cause MSM's failure to carry out it's fourth estate responsibilities are rooted in two areas: 1. the extent of socialization among TV/Cable and print reporters is legend inside the beltway; they're constantly validating their ideas and opinions among each other and thus adopt a "group think" mentality we see, hear and read. 2. The success or lack of it in a MSM member's trying to do their jobs is maintaining access to the sources. Given today's retaliatory environment, members will not do their jobs if it means being taken off the "A" party lists or not being called back by their sources. Fact is we don't have a MSM anymore!
Insurgent..., think you are right on when you say that Bush has had no interest in winning, succeeding, or ending the war in Iraq. Even the surge coming as it did so late in the game hasn't been a winning proposition because, as Hillary Clinton pointed out, the Iraqi government has done next to nothing to solve its political problems, even though the violence is down. And I guess we are all on board with the idea that we can afford to lose anywhere from ten to twenty Americans every week in this conflict. But the Democratic candidates are the only ones even TALKING about when the troops should return. The Repugs still for the most part think victory, success, dominance in the Mideast is almost upon us.
The MSM, as part of the status quo, likes to keep things simple: frame every discussion with no more than two points; i.e. either/or, them or us, republicans v democrats, hillery or obama, hope and change, coke or pepsi, mcdonalds or burger king, etc. talking about edwards just throws a monkey wrench into the system.
support the troops by ignoring the war.
Iraq is off the radar (for the most part) because of three major reasons:
-Dems have basically reached a concensus. Dem voters know their candidates will bring troops home. Now it is a matter fo waiting until a Dem controls the White House;
-Rep candidates are afraid to discuss Iraq. Rep voters let them off the hook by buying into their rhetoric. And Iraq is an "unpleasant" subject;
-News organizations (owned by corporations) don't report on Iraq for a host of reasons... none of which are concern for our troops, our citizens, or America's world standing.
Iraq will be owned by America for decades to come and owernship requires obligations of care.
And consequently the young men and women of America will continue to die, lose arms and legs, eyes and ears, testicles from land mines, radioactive blood pumping through their vains from depleding casings and survive destroyed lives for short periods living in wheel chairs, others under bridges, alleys, parks and along the river banks of the Patomic where the sewers drain into the sea from the government buildings. Where the congresspersons and senators have excreted their excrements for nature to clean.
The new generation of the lost and disposed.
As Powell commented once, when we break it, we own it.
Only the democracy fascade needs to be firmly in place for the declaration of victory for freedom to be announced by the reich.
1) The economy affects every American individually.
2) The war in Iraq only directly affects those whom have family and friends fighting over there.
The war issue has been played and we know pretty much where each candidate stands. Recession and economic recovery are newer issues and the candidates need to position themselves.
The economy is an important issue, especially since fiscal policy and the economy are the factors that say many independant voters.
As always, great post Arianna. Thanks.
The Iraq War is being forgotten by design. If it was going well, you couldn't get away from it on the corporate run MSM.
But the reality is that Bush/Cheney, Inc., really screwed the pooch on this one: The Saudis and other Sunni Arab nations needed Iraq as a check against the expansion of Iran and Shia influence in the region.
So what does George W. do? He goes in and bumps off the Iraqi government and military, paving the way for an Iranian expansion in Iraq. Not surprisingly, the Sunni Arabs are more than pis-ed.
George is over there kissing a-s right now, but it's not possible to kiss enough a-s to fix this one. The Sunni Arabs are screwed and they know it, and the Saudis are no match for the Iranians, especially right on their own border in eastern Iraq.
For someone who claims not to like the Iranians, the Iranians couln't have a better friend than George W.
George W. tragically sent U.S. soldiers to die in paving the way for Iran to ultimately take over Eastern Iraq, U.S. tax payers payed for it, and Iran is now getting rich on selling us $100 a barrel oil.
I'm surprised Ahmadinejad doesn't sh-t his pants laughing everytime he sees our Chimp-in-Chief.
From our side of these events though, it's most certainly no laughing matter. It is almost impossible to believe that anyone could be this incompetent in the operation of foreign policy.
Guess that's what happens though when the monkey wants the shiney object so badly he can't figure out it's his grasping of that object that has his hand trapped in the coconut.
How do you catch a monkey George? Turns out the Iranians know.
Arianna,
You are right i that MSM has fed Americans false information about the surge.
Bush's surge IS NOT WORKING.
Bremer's SHOCK THERAPY did not work as well as planned.
Bremer failed so miserably that BUSH cancelled what were to be the first Democratic elections in Iraq ever.
Now we have BUSHIES pushing through laws in Iraq that are in serious conflict with what was promised - DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQ.
Iraq is being privatized and corporatized as we speak, all so that Bush and his cabal can lay claim to OIL.
This is disaster capitalism at it's most shameless.
Why would any candidate upset the status quo ?
Any presidential candidate has got to be aware of the disgraceful way our country has acted in the resource grab of Iraq's oil.
BUSHIES have successfully promoted the most ANTI- Marshall Plan ever.
Rumsfeld has been filling his pockets with hundres of millions as has Cheney - as they never relinquished their investments DIRECTLY related to the Iraq invasion.
Any candidate knows that he too can get in on the Iraq Bonanza - if theres anything left after Bush leaves office.
Sadly, Iraq is not the only issue being ignored. For example, since January of 2007, the Sunday morning talking heads have asked 2,679 questions. Of those questions, Global Warming has been mentioned three times, the same amount given to UFOs. http://www.whataretheywaitingfor.com/facts.html
And what about Katrina and the government's pitiful response to Katrina? And what about the survivors of Katrina? And what about the forgotten poor? And where are the questions addressing the country's damaged infrastructure or the state of our VA hospitals. And what about the issue that more than six years after 9/11, our ports remain unprotected and chemical plants are still not secure?
And then there's the issues of how the Department of Justice has become a political tool. And where are the questions about secret renditions, torture, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, and spying on Americans? And what about the issue of holding this administration accountable for all their misdeeds? Are we just to assume that the next president will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration, or will the next president pull a Gerald Ford or Bill Clinton and sweep such matters under the rug?
Once again the American public demonstrates its political and historical amnesia.
The news media sets the agenda once again!
Loading comments…
Posted January 14, 2008 | 07:51 PM (EST)