Duelling Spin On Iraq

The next few weeks are going to be critical for the debate on the future of the war in Iraq, and for the future of Iraq itself. Because everyone knows this, the spin doctors are sharpening their tools and trotting out their market-tested phraseology in an attempt to frame the debate before it even begins. While I will be addressing other phases of the situation in upcoming articles, today I want to focus only on the perceptions that are being filtered out to the public, and how effective their influence currently is. We've all been told how important "framing the issue" is, so I want to examine the framing so far.

 

Is the "surge" working? Is the "escalation" a failure?

First up is what is being sold as an overall view of progress (or lack thereof) of President Bush's "surge." A few intrepid journalists, some savvy Democratic politicians, and almost all the lefty bloggers still treat the term "surge" with derision (I refuse to ever use the term without surrounding it by quote marks, because it's easier than typing "the so-called 'surge' " every time I use it). But the alternate -- "escalation" -- (complete with Vietnam overtones) never really caught on. Bush's terminology has largely won the day. Most mainstream media stories, and most politicians (even some Democrats) use the term surge (without any emphasis, or verbal "quote marks") almost every time the subject comes up, so this has to be judged a win for the White House spin machine.

Their latest improvement on this basic theme is: "The surge is working." Bill Maher had the best commentary on this phrase, from a video clip posted at Huffington Post:

That's right, apparently the surge IS working. Not the actual surge -- but the phrase, "The surge is working." That seems to be working, proving once again that Americans will believe anything if you repeat it enough.

Fact-checking the "surge" isn't all that easy, but the Associated Press has provided the best numbers I've seen yet on the situation in Iraq. But numbers don't tell the whole story, as both sides in the debate will tell you. The White House has been beating the drum of "al Anbar province is getting better because we turned the tribal leaders away from Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and they're now working with us against the terrorists." Not much is said about the fact that we may be arming Sunnis, which would put America in the position of backing both sides in the civil war (which we've certainly done before in the region). Sunni sheiks have turned against AQI, but that doesn't mean they've made their peace with the central government. I've written before about this trend towards warlordism in Iraq, and its possible consequences.

Both sides in the "surge" debate are strongly arguing their positions. From the right: "The surge is working. Even Democrats are saying so." From the left: "It's 'whack-a-mole' -- some areas may be better, but that just means other areas are worse. More Iraqis are dying, so how can this be 'success'?" Neither "frame" has ultimately won in the court of public opinion (yet) but so far, the Republican view is winning more mainstream journalists over, so at this point they have to be seen as being out front on this issue.

This may change in September. What the Democrats should use to counter this is straight from the recently-released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq:

"The IC [Intelligence Community] assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shiite coalition [the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA], Grayd Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties."

This is what Democrats should be rallying behind to counter "the surge is working" -- "the political process in Iraq is moving BACKWARD." Which means that, according to the CIA and every other intelligence agency of the United States government, the "surge" could continue for another 6 to 12 months, hundreds more American soldiers could die, and all for -- what? A crumbling Iraqi government? That's the sort of equation Americans can understand instantly, and it astonishes me that the Democrats aren't forcefully making this argument.

 

Fresh spin from the White House

Last week I ran a bumpersticker contest. One of my favorite entries was:

"Now it IS like Viet Nam?"

President Bush ran this argument up the flagpole last week, speaking to (of course) a friendly audience (the Veterans of Foreign Wars) -- "even if we all disagree about how we got into Vietnam, of course we can all agree that we got out too soon, and that doing so emboldened Osama Bin Laden." Or something. I must admit, it was kind of hard to follow his logic.

Thankfully, other than those who have already drunk the neo-con Kool Aid, nobody agreed. This theory was resoundingly ridiculed, most forcefully by actual historians. Don't expect Bush to be talking about Vietnam much in the future, as this ten-ton rhetorical rock sinks below the waves of spin.

Not to be outdone, Senator Mitch McConnell trotted out the newest phrase from the right-wing Spin-o-matic. Here he is on yesterday's Fox News Sunday.

Well, Senator Warner called me Friday afternoon to underscore that he still supports the president, that he is not in favor of a surrender date.

. . .

Well, I think we're going to find out what General Petraeus has to say, in fact, in September rather than trying to prejudge what he may recommend, but I do think there's a good chance that in September we'll go in a different direction.

I don't think that means an arbitrary surrender date, but I think it's entirely possible that the president will lay out a strategy that takes us into a different place, which hopefully, at the end of the day, ends up with some American troops forward deployed in the Middle East at the end of this draw down that many of us are anticipating over a period of time.

So there you have it: the new phrase that will be used as a blunt instrument against congressional Democrats next month: "surrender date." Since this term is brand new, it's impossible to say whether it will catch on with the general public or not. Stay tuned....

 

Conventional Wisdom from the Punditocracy

There are three interesting themes from the pundit class which have sort of instantaneously emerged as conventional wisdom (I refuse to use the term "CW" because it just makes me look egotistical...).

The first of these is that Senator Warner is chomping at the bit to vote with the Democrats to end the war next month.

Um... I don't think so.

If you actually listen to what Warner is consistently saying, it's a lot tamer than that. He is calling for a symbolic troop drawdown, something on the order of 5,000 troops home for Christmas. He says he's doing this to put real pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, by letting him know that we're not going to be in Iraq forever. But he explicitly states that he is merely making a suggestion to Bush, that he does not intend to vote for a firm withdrawal date, and that he defers to the Executive Branch's decision on the matter -- as he doesn't think Congress should be the ones to end the war. Warner, much like Senator McConnell above, seems to have some sort of delusional trust in Bush to "do the right thing" and start a drawdown of troops. Even though Bush has shown absolutely zero inclination to do so.

Now, Warner may indeed end up supporting the Democrats when it comes time to vote, but I will believe that when I see it. Because nothing he is saying now leads me to believe that that will be the case.

The second conventional wisdom (which seems both newly-hatched and widespread) is that Prime Minster Maliki should be printing up his résumé, because he's toast as leader of Iraq. Time magazine is even speculating about all the possible successors to Maliki. Now, I've been saying for months that Maliki's government is fragile and could crumble at any point, but I wonder what inside information the mainstream pundits have at this point to conclude that the game is already over for Maliki. Time will tell on this one, I guess, or maybe Time will tell....

The last bit of conventional wisdom passed around the Sunday morning talk shows is that April 2008 is when the troops are going to come home, and the "surge" will begin to end. This one was a simple bit of math, performed after Army Chief of Staff General Casey said recently that troop deployments will not be extended beyond their current 15 months. The "surge" started in January of this year, so add fifteen months, and you get next April. If this is true, the timetable will be approximately 5,000 soldiers per month leaving Iraq (the same schedule they used going in), until the 30,000 added with the "surge" has been drawn down.

While this is an interesting calculation, what interested me more was the fact that almost everyone citing this April date pretty much agreed that Congress wasn't going to be able to do anything about Iraq in the meantime. Bush will get another Friedman Unit or so, and we'll have the current 160,000 troops in Iraq until next April. That seems to be making a lot of stew from one oyster, in my opinion. I think the upcoming debate in Congress may have a little more effect on the situation than that, but we'll see.

 

The other shoe

Having been fairly successful with the "surge is working" theme, the White House is trying desperately to come up with a companion theme: "The political situation in Iraq is moving forward." This one is going to be a harder sell, for obvious reasons. Mostly because the American public can see with their own eyes that it isn't happening. And if the "Maliki is toast" idea gains traction, then it may be impossible for the White House to successfully convince people that simultaneously, things are turning up roses between Iraq's Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.

But they're certainly giving it the old college try. Vastly overshadowed in the news today by Alberto Gonzales' resignation is a story that seems to be an attempt by Bush to spin what was basically a photo-op in Iraq into "progress on the political front," after Maliki issued a statement of "unity" between Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish political leaders. You can imagine the White House's disappointment at this news being buried by Gonzales, since they obviously worked so hard on pressuring Maliki to "give us SOMEthing before September." Maliki delivers a photo-op, and nobody even notices.

Of course, as the Gonzales news fades, it may get some traction. Watch for lots of repetition of "Maliki's bringing everyone in Iraq together" from the right-wing echo chamber in the next few weeks. Remember, when Bush reports on the 18 milestones in Iraq in September, he doesn't actually have to show he completed any of them, he just has to show progress. Which he gets to define. So watch for this progress to show up prominently in the upcoming report, as illusory as it may prove to be. But whether the general public buys the "Iraq is about to break out in a chorus of Kumbaya" line or not is another story.

 

Some may call me crass (or even worse names) for addressing just the "framing" or "spin" of these issues. I strongly disagree. Republicans have been winning these framing victories for years now, and the only way Democrats can counter this tactic is to co-opt the framing game. Democrats need to agree on one phrase to use in order to ridicule the other side's position -- and then repeat that phrase ad nauseum. "Ten words or less" should be the golden rule.

 

[I'm going to be focusing on many aspects of the Iraq war in the next few weeks, because September's going to be the acid test: will Bush hold enough congressional Republicans with him, or will they be defecting en masse to the Democratic position? Will the war in Iraq begin to end next month or won't it? But because there are so many facets to the issue of Iraq, I will attempt to deal with them one by one in shorter articles, rather than writing one massive all-encompassing summary of the situation. Because I don't want to flood Huffington Post with all of this, these articles will be running both here and on ChrisWeigant.com.]

 

Comments

[kjg25171]

We hear talk that the "surge" is working. How do we really know? Imagine an out of control classroom where the teacher has to call for help. In walks the principal and security guards(the surge) and the class immediately settles down. Has the surged worked? We won't know until after the extra troops have left.
.

[wayoutleft]

there is no debate on iraq. everybody is going to use surge hype and petraeus to vote for funds again. game over. the democrats are simply debating about what is the best position to assume while taking it from bush in september. they will vote to support bush imperialism again. so that doesn't need to be discussed. none are stronger men or women than george bush. all he cares about is the money; and he will just take it again from the dem weaklings. he doesn't care what they say.
so there are no new developments regarding the democrats' continued broad bipartisan support of bush on the war. however ari fleischer has now produced this campaign's willie horton- swift boat ad. it is great and it will defeat the democratic candidate (who won't answer it) just like horton and swift boat did. game over.
the democrats have already lost.

[snaggster]

We don't need to spin anything and nobody should be falling for any spin. We were lied into an illegal war and nothing that's happened (or will or won't happen) changes that basic fact. We need to get out of Iraq now.

[Lupercus]

Even before I looked at other sources, I looked at Michael O'Hanlon's Iraq Index. And what you'll see is that even O'Hanlon's stats show no real progress... although you'll see some creative corrections to his data as well. See my full analysis here: http://dcdl.org/2007/08/06/statistics-schmatistics

[LizM]

As for the first bit of CW...sorry...Senator Warner is making the same mistake that everyone else does...well, except for Senator Biden, of course... and is operating under the fundamentally flawed premise that a strong central government in Baghdad - one that can effectively engender the trust of all Iraqis and provide security and services to the entire country or achieve any kind of political reconciliation - will materialize now, or in the near, medium or even longterm future.

And, a note about CW#2...Maliki or Allawi or Muqtada al'Sadr or whoever heads up the "unity" government in Iraq isn't the problem here. The problem is the very structure of the Iraqi government as it is currently constituted. This government needs to be wholly restructured if Iraq is to have any hope of getting onto a path toward stability.

I agree with you, at least as far as CW#3 is concerned. In fact, I"d go you one further...the truth of the matter is that Republican support for the President's non-strategy is waning, and fast.

Many of them have just been waiting for some political cover which the report from General Petraeus (it doesn"t really matter who wrote it) will provide. Petraeus will report, in essence, no progress on political reconciliation in Iraq - ostensibly the rationale behind the troop surge, in the first place. Despite very recent indications that the government in Iraq is now engaging in talks to move political reconciliation forward, Petraeus/Crocker will not be able to point to any substantial progress on achieving a real political accommodation, no matter how it gets spun.

Most Republicans in the Senate know that there is no likely prospect for political progress so long as the President continues on his present course and support for the Biden strategy is growing steadily and inevitably.

Timing is everything and it just looks as though everything will be coming to a head this fall. Call me a cockeyed optimist.


"Make Hope And History Rhyme"...Biden/Hagel 2008 It"s written in the stars.
(that"s not a bumper sticker...it"s my new signature!)

[Dap]

Cockeyed Surrealist :)

[Dap]

Dear Chris,

That was really well done, understanding framing is important. Just exposing that issues are framed is important, this goes over the top of many Peoples heads, because it is subtle in many ways, and Peoples attention span is so short.

I would like to point out another aspect and why being aware of framing is important. Framing is used, especially by sophists, as the point/place where the wedge is placed in a fissure, in order to open the divide.

It creates divisiveness and obfuscates issues with fallacious reasoning, tactically it buys time, and keeps the opposition off balance, allowing for actions to take place in the confusion, when the smoke clears they have a stronger foot hold.

This tactic/strategy, while effective, is extremely harmful to the general good of society as a whole. Mostly because it becomes a breeder of mistrust and elevates levels of fear and stress within the human psyche.

Playing with fire comes to mind. And... we all are quite aware of what happens if ones plays with fire in a dried out forest, *Tinderbox*.

Great post Chris, I'll be looking forward to the others. Agape.

[1fliteup]

Bush has no idea of getting out of Iraq as long as there in money to be made for KBR, Blackwater , etc. etc. The reason for Invading Iraq was strictly for profit. And Petraus is just another yes man. The Bush abomination has been cronyism, and sloganism to cover up profitism.

[paulrevererides]

You skip over the AP report that in 2007 nearly twice as many Iraqi civilians are being killed by the war as were killed in 2006 as though it was of little consequence. In fact it is critical. We already know there are more American casualties, and that there is no progress on reconciliation. That violence is even worse overall for Iraqi civilians puts the absolute uncontrovertible lie to any claim that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq and is "working." Yet neither the msm nor the blogs nor Democratic office holders are paying much attention to it. We should be screaming bloody murder. Just because they're Generals doen't mean they don't lie, or at least ignore inconvenient facts. For God's sake, everyone, call them on it.

[Zhonni]

The only reason why the so called surge is working is not because there are more soldiers in the Anbar province. The Al Qaeda elements, that went to Iraq after the invasion, got out of hand.

It was great when they were killing Americans, it was ok when they started indiscriminate bombing of Iraqi civilians, but when they started killing the Shieks or the elites, they cried foul and motivated ordinary Iraqis to fight against the terrorist and working with Americans in the process. That is the story of Al Anbar in a nut shell.

Don't be fooled by this, in time amnesia will set in among the elites, and we will start getting attacked again.

[nypoet22]

I agree, it would be useful to have us see who can come up with the most streamlined, effective "frame" for each issue, and all be agreed to use the winning frame whenever we post about that issue. we need our own echo chamber to counter theirs.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Some Republicans in Congress, and at a minimum all who are up for reelection this cycle, are smart enough to uderstand the word games, that they have been played by the right to the maximum effect possible throughout, and that this crap just isn't selling the way that it once did. They can act like they're saying something when they mouth the routines from the playbook, in which casee they may just as well retire openly and save themselves the aggravation of trying. Or they can work at trying to save their own skin, which will require an entirely different strategy.

The big rhetorical guns were rolled out for the 2006 campaign and the results were less than impressive. The safe betting will be that even more people will recognize "stay the course" no matter how it is camouflaged in 2008, and that it will sell even more poorly now than last time.

Take a look at the mood of the country and then explain why such would not be the case.

Added to this likely will be what proved to be the wild card for Daddy Bush in 1992, economic slowdown (and serious enough this time that Ross perot won't be needed as a kicker). The Republicans are probably looking at a worst case scenario in 2008, and few of them look to be the kind of gamblers that will try to bluff their way through a full on political shit storm. The safe bet will be that they flinch, and start doing it sooner rather than later.

At that point politics would start to become enjoyable again.

[grendl]

George Bush"s fast and loose approach to language is the single biggest reason we"re in the mess we"re in today.

It was kind"ve funny in a Norm Crosby sort of way when he mangled words like " nuclear", and outright invented his own on occasion.

But it"s not so funny anymore. Declaring countries an " Axis of Evil" is okay for playing a game of Risk, but in the real world such provocative and polarizing phraseology only paints this country into a diplomatic corner.

And coining a phrase like " War on Terror ", while a great headline in a newspaper, drops an impossible burden into this country"s lap. We are now responsible for fighting terrorists everywhere, and if we don"t we"ll be seen as favoring only countries which serve our national interests. After Tim McVeigh bombed the Murtaugh building in Oklahoma City, no one declared a war on terror. And it wasn"t used as a reason to invade other places.

Bush today called Roberto Gonzales " honorable". It just goes to show his failings with definitions. Gonzales was "loyal" to the Bush administration, not honorable. The way Andy Fastow was loyal to Jeff Skilling and Kenneth Lay at Enron. He was a crook, but he was a loyal crook.

Surge is of course a similar misnomer. What are we surging against? Mission accomplished against whom? What the hell was the mission? We never found weapons of mass destruction, another great and terrifying phrase so amorphous it defies usefulness. The next president should be tested for grammar and language skills.