2013

Watching last night's forum from Dartmouth, I was stunned by the convergence of the top three Democratic presidential candidates on a new target date for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq: 2013. My initial reaction upon hearing that date was that the top tier of the Democratic presidential field had finally swung to Hillary Clinton's frame on Iraq. Clinton's increasing lead at the polls--as well as the growing perception that she is the front-runner--has given her frame on Iraq a new dominance.

In addition, Clinton's front runner status appears to have opened up a contrast between the top tier and the rest of the field with regard to Iraq--but on closer inspection we see that this division also is now dominated by the Clinton frame.

The result is what I would tentatively call a new 'official' Democratic frame on Iraq--the logic through which the party believes it can lead the debate, win the White House and hold the majority in Congress.

Here's a sketch of what that frame appears to be:

[Iraq] is [A War]

Despite efforts by progressives to shift the candidates to see Iraq as an 'occupation,' the Democratic Party has chosen to treat Iraq as a 'war.' If the candidates were thinking through the logic of [Iraq] is [an occupation] than they would have talked more about legalities and fairness, but they did not. The dominant theme of the discussion on Iraq was the relationship between troop presence and the continuation or ending of the war.

Congress Is Powerless

Despite the ongoing effort by progressives and anti-war activists to push the Democratic majority congress to use its power to change the Iraq policy, all Democrats running for President--with the noteworthy exceptions of Gravel and Kucinich--now accept the idea that Iraq belongs to Bush. There is no longer any significant effort by the Democratic candidates to tell a story of how Congress can use its power to define U.S. foreign policy in the face of a President who has created a constitutional crisis. The top tier candidates in particular have all accepted the logic that they are powerless to effect serious change in the Iraq policy given the current political landscape.

Iran Is A Direct Threat To The United States

With the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, all Democratic candidates now speak in terms of Iran as a direct threat to the safety of the American people. The idea followed this logic: change in Iraq will have an impact on future safety for Americans because of how that change will effect our ability to stop Iran. All the Democratic candidates now seem to accept this logic, although there is a significant division within the field on how to address Iran. Richardson alone believes that the key to dealing with Iran is regional diplomacy--calling for a redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq to nearby U.S. allied nations as a first step towards a regional diplomatic process involving Iran, Syria, Israel and Iraq. The idea that it may be necessary to use military force against Iran was not refuted, although it was not explicitly called for.

Withdrawal Is Not The Answer

The top tier candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) are not speaking about withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq as a significant part of the solution to the crisis. The idea that to solve the crisis, we must first withdraw combat troops from Iraq is very clearly the minority position in the Democratic field and his held by Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel. Dodd has taken up the view that the policy itself has been a mistake, therefore, the policy must be ended--also putting him in the dissenting position. But the official view on withdrawal of U.S. forces seems to be that it is not the key to ending the crisis in Iraq.

Iraq Will Be Partitioned

Despite the division in the Dem Presidential field on the subject of Iraq, all the candidates now talk about the 'partitioning' of Iraq as the logical endgame, albeit achieved through different means. The one exception to this view is Kucinich who explicitly stated last night that the United States should work hard to bring about the unity of Iraq. Still, the Kucinich position--by virtue of Kucinich's standing the polls--served largely to cast light on the dominance of the partition frame. Joe Biden seems to be the driving force behind this logic in the Presidential field, but last night it was Clinton who specifically endorsed this idea, setting in motion a domino effect whereby most of the candidates concurred. Whether partition is imposed or chosen voluntarily by the Iraqis was the distinction in Dem views, although few candidates except Biden seem comfortable with explicitly stating that the U.S. should (or would be able to) impose partition.

Five More Years: 2013

The top-tier candidates all agreed last night that the Iraq war is only half over--that if elected President, each will continue the U.S. occupation and U.S. combat operations inside Iraq until at 2013. This means that the official Democratic position is now that the Iraq war will be a ten-year war. Furthermore, this suggests that the Democratic Party has decided that it would like to see their success in moving war and occupation in Iraq to a close become a major topic in the 2012 Presidential election--too be, as it were, the key reason to re-elect the Democrat. The exceptions to this position are Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel. Richardson, however, sees redeployment, a regional diplomatic solution and ongoing regional anti-terrorism operations, which would leave U.S. forces in the region, albeit not in Iraq. Dodd was the most explicit in calling for a new policy that did not also imply the presence of U.S. forces in the region. Kucinich and Gravel simply called for withdrawal.

Endless Money

Questions about how to pay for the next 5-years of war and occupation in Iraq were not engaged, meaning that the top tier of the Democratic party has now accepted the 'endless money' logic for the war on Iraq. While progressives have been making widespread comparisons between the amount of money spent in Iraq and the amount of money needed to pay for other parts of the U.S. government, the Democratic presidential field has, by and large, not picked up that logic. It is noticeable that in discussions of healthcare and retirement, for example, the 'endless money' frame is now extinguished, whereas in the Iraq debate it is now commonplace for Democrats.

Dem Story On Iraq: Continuity

Ironically, all of these developments suggest that the big story articulated by the leading Democrats when it comes to Iraq is: continuity. With the exception of Richardson who called for a tectonic shift from an Iraq-centered policy to a regional shift, none of the candidates placed Iraq inside a new Democratic Party story about what foreign policy should be about or where it will be heading. Instead, talk about Iraq was talk about continuity. Iraq is currently the center of U.S. foreign policy under the Republicans and, according to the logic articulated last night, if a Democratic candidate is elected, then Iraq will continue to be the center of U.S.foreign policy. While each of the candidates is arguing that electing a Democrat is a vote for change, it appears that the official Democratic Party view is that 'change' will happen someplace other than the Iraq policy (e.g., healthcare, environment, etc.)

Conclusion: Iraq Used To Show Strength, Not Skill
One conclusion I draw from all these developments is that Iraq is seen as an opportunity to demonstrate to the electorate that the Democratic Party candidate is strong--in militaristic terms--rather than an opportunity to demonstrate the problem solving skills of the Democratic Party. The idea that the Democratic Party is still perceived as 'weak' on defense and that this perception is the major electoral vulnerability--this logic has grown even stronger since the 2006 elections. Whereas large segments of the population believed they were voting for the Democrats for their ability to solve problems--to find the way to end the Iraq war and bring U.S. forces home--the Democratic Party appears to be focusing its 2008 Presidential campaign at those voters who want a candidate who can demonstrate military strength. Rather than having a Presidential election between a problem solving Democrat and a militaristic Republican, the Democratic Party appears to believe that the race will be between an enlightened militaristic Democrat and an authoritarian militaristic Republican.

As such, the shift in the Iraq frame made it even more obvious who the Democratic Party believes the GOP '08 presidential candidate will be.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[Doofus]

I have said on various occasions that the
Repos must WIN the war, and the Demos must
NOT lose it. So now we begin to see how that plays out.

If Repos lose the presidency & turn matters
over to the Demos (which is a repeat of the
1968 election when LBJ & the Demos turned
the Vietnam war over to the Repos), the Demos
then have to go into 'Peace With Honor' mode
and find a 'respectable' way out of Iraq for them
& US. Or just go ahead & win it, like that could
happen. Either way takes a long time.

It's just amazing how 'political dynamics'
seem to dictate what has to happen. It's as
if the People have no real say in what goes
down. In the end, in a Republic, the 'leaders
know best', so f*ck them.

Don't like it? Elect Kucinich/Paul & hope
for the best. As for the oil, probably we
can say 'Good Bye' to that. Future payments
in euros, please.

[Think82]

JEFFREY

let's get something straight about the Biden plan:

A few key facts about the Biden amendment:

* The legislation does not tell Iraqis what to do. It speaks only to what U.S. policy should be.
* Federalism is not a U.S. or foreign imposition on Iraq. Iraq's own constitution calls a "decentralized, federal system" and sets out the powers of the regions (extensive) and those of the central government (limited). The Constitution also says that in case of conflict between regional and national law, regional law prevails.
* Federalism is not partition. In fact, it's probably the only way to prevent partition or, even worse, the total fragmentation of Iraq.
* Federalism will not accelerate sectarian cleansing; it's the only way to stop it. Iraqis are already voting with their feet, as yesterday's article in the New York Times demonstrates. Before the surge, Iraqis were fleeing their homes at a rate of about 40,000 month; now, it's about 100,000 a month. Unless Iraqis come to some kind of agreement on sharing power peacefully, the cleansing will continue.

[Demonax]

If the Iraqi Constitution calls for federalism, then it's up to Iraqis to implement it. In our own Civil War, the south fought for "States' rights." The Confederates believed the right to revolt was guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence (read the opening). But the issue could only be decided on the battlefield, not in the court of foreign opinion. Our interpretation of the Iraqi Constitution is no more relevant than Britain's attitude toward ours. The Shiites have been told that Iraq is a democracy. They know they are the majority. They don't want a divided Iraq - a loose confederacy - any more than we did in 1863. Nor do they intend to make nice with the Sunnis; they want to WIN and collect the spoils. We've opened Pandora's box and we can't close it again. Good job, Bush!

[laocoon]

Yes but if you get a "second tier " candidate they will lose. So you insure Republican fascism will be firmly established. Face it the two party system blackmails us into electing a candidate who is acceptable to the real rulers of the US. Liberals should revise their views regarding the 2nd amendment.

[Synoia]

Wonder what the Chinese think of this, they're paying for it.

[Doofus]

"Softly, softly, catchee monkey."

(Whatever in hell that means.)

http://pinetreeweb.com/bp-prempeh-00.htm

[Beaux510]

Just met the new boss, same as the old boss.

What a shocker....

Time for a new system

[djarvis]

Your blog is correct, up to a certain point. While the top three candidates did not pledge that they would remove ALL of our troops by 2013, they all agreed that we could DRAW DOWN the amount of troops in Iraq significantly.

It is oversimplifying things to say that the Democrats were doing just like the Republicans by not removing all of the troops. The Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) have all said they would continue this war as is or even INCREASE the number of troops in Iraq.

While it would be nice and idealistic to say that we could remove ALL troops, it still seems reasonable to me for us to keep some small residual forces in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy there and for counterterrorism. This is still a big difference from staying the course and keeping over 100,000 troops in Iraq.

[cheerleaderBush]

Anyone who was in THE SENATE OR CONGRESS IN OCTOBER '02 that VOTED TO GIVE GW BUSH A BLANK CHECK ON IRAQ IS EITHER CORRUPT OR PROFOUNDLY INCOMPETANT - or BOTH.

if i was able to figure out in the summer of '02 that Bush/Cheney had their own agenda and they were going invade and occupy Iraq (whether or not the UN authorized it or the UN inspectors found any WMD), then our Congress should have also known...or at least extensively debated the issue.

AND REMEMBER AT THE TIME OF THE OCTOBER '02 VOTE, THE DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE SENATE... but Hillary Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry and a host of other power hungry presidential candidates abdicated their most important CONSTITUTIONAL POWER and handed it over to a proven corrupt and incompetent president - ONE PERSON (like in a dictatorship)!!!

If Clinton, Edwards, Dodd (and all the Iraq war supporter republican candidates except for Paul) used such profoundly poor judgment on such an important issue in the past, what makes you think they won't do the same when THEY ARE PRESIDENT?!?!?!?

[dictatortot]

What makes Iraq such a tragedy is that there are no good, much less simple, answers.

It was profoundly immoral to invade in the first place; Bush wouldn't know Just War Theory if it slapped him in the face. It would be at least as profoundly immoral to pull out now and leave the Iraqis in a bloodbath that we caused.

You can oppose the war 100% and still recognize the fact that we're stuck there for not just another administration, but another generation.

http://www.newsprism.com

[Nanci]

This country has one party, the corporate party. The dems and repugs are just the faces of the corporate party. The corporate party will keep us in Iraq or any conflagration as long as there is a buck to be made. Ask yourself who's paying, and going to continue to pay for that largest, most expensive embassy of all time in Iraq. We'll even elbow in on Myanmar. Not a lot of resources, but they do have lots of timber and natural gas. And it would piss of the Chinese. And, we can always give the same line we did in Iraq. We are freeing the folks from their own oppression (for their own good). But, we all know it's about creating yet another point of American corporate hegemony.

[Drill]

Pacifists belong in the Libertarian party...NOT the Democratic party.

[rmreddicks]

I believe I understand why you don't want pacifists in the Democratic Party. I'm curious how they fit in with the Libertarian Party.

[meanmonkey]

Disclaimer: (everything seems to need disclaimers these days) I am a liberal. The following are just my thoughts and not to be construed as gospel truths. So don't get a in "Huff" (no pun intended)

:)

I think maybe Obama, Edwards and Clinton are getting a little too much flak for thier positions

So many people on this board (and sometimes the bloggers themselves) are like children crying "I'm taking my toys and going home, that's it I'm not playing!" every time there representatives don't have the Exact position they hold. Your elected and hopefully to be elected representatives have to serve (and pander) to ALL of thier constituents not just you. Cut them a little slack.

Any candidate that is saying I will take every American solder out of Iraq, does not know what they are doing.

1. Iraq may not have been a danger to the US before G.W. screwed it up but it sure is now. The power vacuum the US created IS now a breeding ground for terrorists.

2. We (don't say "they" did it, not us. It's always US) destroyed/removed the economic/political infrastructure in Iraq. Colin Powell didn't know anything about WMD's but he was right about "you break it, you buy it", we have moral responsibilities in Iraq now.

3. Because of the power vacuum in Iraq, the government in Iran is going to have levels of influence going forward there that the US has vested interests in preventing or hindering. Like not letting what was before we messed it up a secular Muslim country turn into radical fundamentalist one.


Yes we should take our solders out of harms way and almost all of them out of the country, but what ever burgeoning government/society starts to finally form in Iraq it is going to need US military support for a while going forward. (Yes this means bases in Iraq)

The rallying cry of "bring all our troops home at all costs...total withdrawal" is irresponsible and borders or moral cowardice.

MM.

[rmreddicks]

So, we can't trust the Iraqi's to develop an Iraqi solution? When your bush-like child breaks something does the child fix it?

The Iraqi's will war with each other in an effort to resolve the power vacuum whether we're there or not. Foreign terrorists who attempt to exploit Iraq will most likely die ugly and miserable deaths at the hands of fed up Iraqi's. I much more trust Iraqi's to resolve their situation than I trust bush and his ilk to resolve such a situation. Let us leave, pay reparations, and beg forgiveness. If we're "man" enough.

[mjwca]

Once again, the Dems prove that they cannot be anything other than Republican Light. Unless and until the US can wrap its head around the concept and vision for a country whose identity is not that of “leader of the free world” because of its powerful military rather than its use of diplomacy and democratic ideals, we will go the way of all militaristic societies (Greece, Rome, Ottoman Empire, Germany, USSR, etc) which is to say down the proverbial tubes cause it just costs too damn much, in both treasure and liberties, to build and maintain empire. We are destroying our economy along with our democratic ideals by the costs of endless war mongering to no good end and blissfully marching down the path of the aforementioned militaristic societies whistling the same “national interests” and “greater good” tunes. Problem is, like the rest of them, our country is just as tone deaf.

[rmreddicks]

Mr. Feldman,

I'm a step behind you on this: "As such, the shift in the Iraq frame made it even more obvious who the Democratic Party believes the GOP '08 presidential candidate will be."

The shift in frame doesn't seem to preclude any of the GOP nominees other than Paul.

It also doesn't seem likely that the Dems will have to run AGAINST any particular G.O.P candidate as opposed to simply running against the last two terms. (I'm also inclined to believe that it's not going to matter a whit in hell which of the two major parties win the 2008 "election". It's just that the working aspects are often interesting.)

Obviously Dem handlers have handicapped it all, but I'm apparently missing the obvious. It seems McCain may surge (not a pun) from here to actual primary/caucus voting; Thompson should slowly rise (if he avoids silly mistakes) and eventually Giuliani will shoot himself in the foot (I think and hope). Leaving Romney who could easily get reverse flip-flopped.

I think it's going to be R.G or F.T. Please let me know if and where I've erred.

[JimR]

Can you tell all those people risking their lives for democracy in Myanmar to SHUT UP? We're busy trying to forcefeed democracy to the Iraqis.

[steamboat]

JimR, good comment. Myanmar(Burma) must not have oil.......BTW, on a couple of other posts, my liberal friends are in denial about what Hillary, Obama, and Edwards said last night about Iraq. THEY SAID IT !

[rabun666]

Why is this not surprising considering the thru the DLC the Democratic party has become a branch of the Republican Party. HillBillary[Hillary & Bill] vowed to change the Democratic Party and have done so by making it a branch of the Republican Party. Hillary's a Republican; campaigned for Nixon in 1960, voted for him in 68. Was a Goldwater Girl and president of the Wellesley Young Republican Club. The only thing to do is to abandon the Democratic Party, withhold all donations and votes.They cannot wing a presidential election without the progressive/liberal wing of the party. THEIR CAMPAIGN PLATFORM IS THE CONTINUATION OF A BUSH PRESIDENCY.

[smzzzz]

The most incredible part of the debate was hearing Hillary say she would "take on the special interests." Good grief if Bush said that everyone would roll their eyes and laugh derisively, but this water carrier for almost every corporate special interest you can name from Wal-Mart to big telecom to wall street says it and no one even smirks. From Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton: meet the new boss same as the ....