Dems Must Frame Iraq Before General Election

One frustrating aspect of last night's Democratic debate was the vagueness in the candidate's answers on Iraq.  In debate after debate, both Clinton and Obama have failed to use this national stage to clearly frame their plans to end the U.S. occupation in the region. Instead, both have said that they will consult the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct military leaders to begin withdrawal, and put pressure on the Iraqis.  By now this answer has been repeated so many times that any meaning it once had has dissipated.  Why not draw up the plan right now so that they can act on day one?  Why indeed.

Two factors have moved apace to turn this calculated ambiguity by Obama and Clinton into a potential nightmare in the general election.

The first factor is John McCain has ascended to the Republican throne.  With McCain, the Republicans now have a ludicrous, albeit crystal clear plan for Iraq: whatever it takes, as long as it takes.  Presumably, that means that a McCain presidency would bring an escalation of military forces in Iraq -- as many surges, American lives, and blank checks as it takes.  It's not a happy plan, but it is a clear one. 

The second factor are the rumored plans by the Bush administration and the Iraqis to negotiate a long term "partnership" for U.S. involvement in the region.   Nobody knows exactly what form this partnership might take, but it could well mean that prior to leaving office Bush would negotiate some kind of long-term engagement with Iraq that the next president would be forced to honor, albeit not necessarily a formal treaty.

Those two factors can be reduced down to two, election ready sound bites that sound something like this:

1. As long as it takes
2. Long term partnership

It is safe to say at this point that those two phrases are the Republican position on Iraq heading into the general election.  It is also safe to say that the Democrats are already allowing these positions to frame the debate.

In last night's debate, for example, Hillary Clinton critiqued John McCain's 'as long as it takes' proposal, but she did not offer any clear sense of what the alternative was:

I think we can take out one to two brigades a month.  I've also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be, 50 to a hundred years. So, when you talk about what we need to do in Iraq, we have to make judgments about what is in the best interest of America.  And I believe this is in the best interest.

Notice how the clearest thing in that statement is the McCain proposal -- that Clinton says is bad (and most Americans agree, in principle that it is).  But why can we take out one to two brigades a month?  Why is one to two brigades per month in the best interests of the American people as opposed to, say, three to four? In fact, what are the best interest of the American people according to Hillary Clinton?  We get no answer other than:  When I am president, I will sit down and figure that out.  Vague.  Frustratingly vague.

A remark by Barack Obama's during the debate was equally as unsatisfying as that offered by Clinton, albeit in a different way. In response to Tim Russert asking Obama if he would pull  out of Iraq if the Iraqis asked him to, Obama said (emphasis mine):

Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should be there, then we cannot be there.  This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.  Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests. But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.  We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed.  We will provide them continued support.

Curiously, Barack Obama is already using the word  'partnership' to define his position Iraq--the word the Bush administration and the Republican Party are using to try to take control of the debate heading into the general election.  And that's not the only Republican language Obama used in that answer.  He also said -- as George Bush has said many times -- that he would give the Iraqi's time to "stand up" (as in, 'when they stand up, we'll stand down') and assured the Iraqis that America will provide them continued support.  Those parts of his position on Iraq are clear, but they also clearly come from the Republicans.  The part about 'calling in the Joint Chiefs of Staff' to 'initiate a phased withdrawal' is not so clear.  Why will Obama need to call in the Joint Chiefs?  Why not just start the withdrawal.  And why use the exceedingly bureaucratic phrase 'initiate a phased withdrawal' instead of just saying 'begin withdrawing'?  Nobody knows.  The answers remain vague.

Three Points To Clarify The Dem Position

Whoever gets the nomination for the Democrats, if they stick with these vague positions until the general election, they will cede the framing of Iraq to the party that has committed such a strategic blunder.

If Clinton is the nominee, she needs to demonstrate right now that her experience is solid enough for her to articulate--in clear and straightforward language--exactly what she will do in Iraq on day one of her presidency.

If Obama is the nominee, he needs to demonstrate right now that his judgment is good enough that he can state his Iraq plans in his own terms --not using the language Dick Cheney's propaganda--and that he can speak in straight forward clear terms that will rally the nation.

Towards this end, the following are three basic points that both Democrats can use to clarify their positions on Iraq.  These points are merely anchors for much more developed positions, but they can be very helpful to stake out a clear and distinct Democratic Party position right now, but with an eye towards the general election.

Point One: Talk of Ending the Occupation
The major difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on Iraq is that Republicans believe we are fighting a war in Iraq while Democrats believe we are engaged in an occupation.  Both Obama and Clinton must make sure that they stay focused on this distinction and communicate at all times to the voters that their plans are to end the occupation,  while McCain's plans are to prolong the war.  The difference is not that McCain is calling for 50 to a 100 years of war and the Democrats want to end the war in a year.  The difference is that McCain is trapped in the Bush-Cheney talking points that the fiasco in Iraq is a war that we can win, while Democrats see Iraq for what it is:  an occupation gone terribly wrong as a result of the criminal mistakes made by the current administration. 

Point Two: Propose A Diplomatic Summit
Both Obama and Clinton have talked about using diplomacy more than Bush, but they have not made diplomacy a clear part of their proposals.  Proposing an actual event to be hosted by the United States can be an excellent way to make diplomacy something that American voters can visualize.  If Democrats talk about a summit, the voters know that if a Democrat is elected there will be an event in the United States formally initiating a new phase of diplomatic efforts.  If Bush should steal this idea and launch a summit prior to the 2008 election, all the better.  Democrats can take credit for it.  Either way, the American voter sees U.S. foreign policy being driven by the concrete proposals of the Democratic nominee for president.

Point Three: Frame Iraq With A Big Picture
Democrats need to make sure that they go beyond just talking about Iraq policies or plans, to frame the region and U.S. foreign policy with a big picture concept. The big picture the describes the Democrat's new vision for foreign policy does not need to be as poetic or memorable as 'Great Society' or 'New Deal' were for previous clusters of domestic programs,  but there needs to be something along those lines.  When voters listen to Democrats talk foreign policy, they need to be able to distinguish between McCain's continue use of the 'Bush Doctrine' (we all know that means) and the Democratic nominee's '[insert big picture phrase here].'  The big picture could be as easy as 'Smart Security' or it could be something else, but it needs to be something that speaks to the big idea that guide the smaller ones.

1. Occupation
2. Summit
3. Big Picture

If the Democrats use these three anchoring points right now--before the Republicans take control of the frame that defines the Iraq debate--then both Obama and Clinton will be well-positioned to control the discussion for the benefit of the country and the world.

If they continue to hide behind vague statements, then the general election will likely bring confusion and catching up as the clearly weakened Republican Party continues to beat the the Democrats on the defining issue of the century.

Democrats must frame the Iraq debate now--before the general election and before it is too late.

Cross posted from Frameshop

Comments

[research]

We Can't Win A War Crime!

[Ides]

There's a very simple solution to this and I don't know why they haven't thought of it yet.

"You break it, you bought it."

Give the war to John McCain and George W. Bush. Throw up everything they've ever said about it. Attach the war to them. Then make the war a matter of George and Johnny's PRIDE and divorce it from the fortunes of the American soldiers. Make it clear that soldiers' duty is to fight and die and that it is the rich old men in office telling the soldiers to die, sending them out to suffer for their personal pride.

Point out that John McCain needs the war to succeed. Point out that George W. Bush needs the war to succeed. Point out that they need an excuse to blame someone else for their failure because they can't accept it themselves.

GIVE THEM THE WAR! LET THEM HAVE IT! Then ask the American people if they want to prop up these proud, arrogant egotists with their blood and their gold. Don't make it surrender, make it self-destructive pride on the part of John McCain and George W. Bush.

[castlerider]

Thank you so much for this post.

This is exactly the debate that we desperately need to wear out.
I have some answers I have been spouting for months, and I know that this will work, because damnit, it's the truth!

First of all, The LIE that is Iraq is repeated and compounded everyday, every minute because Bush, his party, the Media calls this campaign what it is not! It is NOT a WAR, it is an OCCUPATION!! OK, people are dying daily, we are in a war on terror, but our campaign in IRAQ is a diguised colonization for resources for corporate and political gain that is WAY beneath the sprit and purpose of what our blessed and soveriegn nation deserves.
That our soldier's blood would even be considered as a price for oil should cast shame on any well thinking and responsible American.
The corporate controlled Media does not want to allow us to think this way, but Americans are doing it anyway, because they don't like being lied to.
This is the moment. We need to grab it, and turn this debate on its heels.
Stop giving the right the morale high ground by allowing them to call this a war. It's not.

It's a shameful Occupation/Colonization. Borne from a lie. And America can do better. We need to get out.

[robertell]

Barack can handle any 'framing' issues. It's about who controls the dialog. America is done being scared of terrorists. Bush used fear for politics, against the American people. That was his biggest failure.

But we have learned, and we are ready, strong enough, to make peace now. With Iran.

And we will make a Marshall Plan out of the Israel/Palestinian plight.

And the peace dividend will last for a hundred years.

[leftLibertarian]

Here is my take: frame it as you may.

The war was based on lies. This is a fact.

False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945

Bush and Cheney are fortunate that the Democratic Party is too spineless to impeach them for their crimes.

[vietveter]

Who, besides the people in the White House, really know what the situation is in Iraq? Who knows what 'secret deals' have been made in our name? How can you have a plan to undo or scale down an unknown?

We must first elect then inform then plan. I hate the idea of that fucking illegal war. But I can not fault someone for not having a plan to stop it. How can you play the game if you do not know the rules?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I hear ya.

But I would suggest that our future course in Iraq should not be dependent any longer on what the Iraqis do or do not do.

We went in unilaterally (much as I disagreed with that). We can get our asses OUT unilaterally.

The Iraqis must be weaned of the American tit.

And it's NOT "cold turkey." It's after many years, constitution, elections, (yes deals), and... lame ducks.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Furthermore, both have failed to "frame" Iraq as integral to, and a primary factor of, the lousy economy.

[mostlybluedot]

Good article. Some on the left just take it as a matter of fact that everyone wants out of Iraq, just look at the polls they say. Well. the polls will change when McCain and his pals get going. It has already started. McCain is pointing out that there are bad guys in Iraq and Obama just wants to pull up stakes and leave, like running away with you tail between your legs and giving Iraq to the terrorists and dishonoring all the men and women who died there. By the by there are some Blue Dogs who might object to withdrawal at all costs. Better have a plan and some good sound bites, this issue will haunt the Dems and it is far from settled. Just have to say, Russert is an ass to ask about what if there is trouble there as you pull out, but better have an answer to it or you will be in trouble. McCain will also ask that question.

[leftLibertarian]

Who are these 'bad guys?'

Ordinary Iraqis who want the US out of their country?

Are they al-Quaida, who did not have a presence their until after Bush and Cheney invaded?

[maddog2112]

The majority of American's want us out of Iraq, The majority of US soldiers want us out of Iraq, The majority of the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi Government wants us out of Iraq and the Majority of the rest of the world wants us out of Iraq.

"Better have some good soundbites" is the thinking that got us into this war. How about the right "Better start telling the truth". Your argument that McCain can use better sound bites to change the polls is typical right wingnut nonsense. We do not need to fix polls and public opinion, we need to fix our problems. Republicans think that if they can convice someone or make something appear different than it really is, they have somehow fixed or changed it. It started with "Fair & Balanced". Fox knows they are not fair or balanced and makes no effort to be either of those things. They just need to convince the ignorant that they are by propoganda. This is a short term, "smoke and mirrors" ploy. It is the same with McCain and Iraq. The republicans told us in year 1 that things where improving in Iraq, that was a lie. The republicans told us in year 2 that things where improving in Iraq, that was a lie. The republicans told us in year 3 that things where improving in Iraq, that was a lie.
The republicans told us in year 4 that things where improving in Iraq, that was a lie.
The republicans told us in year 5 that things where improving in Iraq, that was a lie. Now THIS time they really mean it and people are not going to question them? MCCain is the one that said his trip to the Bagdad market was "just like going to a market back home" and later we found out that he had a platoon of Marines and 3 helicopters just to get him to that market.

They may be able to effect the polls, but that does not change the truth and AMerica is slowly waking up to the truth. Any debate about honesty between todays republicans is a debate that no amount of lies and spin can save them.

[Nonamnesiac]

The cost, even if we win, is not worth remaining in even one more hour than is necessary to get out all US troops and contractors safely. Everyone knows we cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq or anywhere else. But the costs to our economy as well as to the lives and limbs of our young does not warrant remaining there at all.

The way McCain can win this argument has nothing to do with that cowardly traitor's "cut-and-run" BS. Americans are way past that. The way McCain wins is by saying that Hillary's and Obama's plan to cut the number of troops in Iraq has already failed and that only the escalation of killing, maiming and relocating Iraqis we refer to as the surge is what caused a reduction in US casualties. In other words, Obama and Clinton favor continuing the war with fewer troops -- a clear recipe for increased US casualties, as already has been proven.

If McCain is able to switch the debate from one of getting out immediately and safely to one of how to keep US casualties down, he wins. And Clinton and Obama are playing right into his hands by supporting keeping forces in Iraq, albeit fewer than McCain wants.

No one on any side of this debate wants the result to be increased US casualties, but McCain will successfully portray either Clinton's or Obama's position as the way to higher US casualties. As a result, he will win the election.

Only immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors is a winning strategy for Democrats -- tying it into the useless drain of resources, lives and limbs that any outcome in Iraq would bring the US.

[NABNYC]

My concern is that Hillary lacks specifics because she has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq. Remember she has been pulled kicking and screaming into a position in opposition to this war. And her real comments have been that she will withdraw some, then see how it goes. She doesn't plan to leave.

As for Obama, I think he does plan to leave, and I think the U.S. military will eagerly assist in that task because everyone except the fanatics realize that this is a disaster and getting worse. But if Obama starts putting out the details for withdrawal, that will give the Republicans more targets to attack.

Just look at the nonsense from Tim Russert last night: but what if al Queda starts something after we leave, oh no. What a ridiculous question. The answer should have been: look, we've bankrupt our country already, we got nothing left. The Iraqis are going to have to work it out.

[ljsfolly]

As we all have seen with many elected officials who promise the world or something they think they can do when elected only to find the process isn't what they thought it was. Also the best plans depends on the make-up of the Congress when they get there. With so many oldies looking much too frail to count them for a lot longer the Congress itself could be much different soon.

[serena1313]

Actually Obama has talked about bringing Iraq's neighbours, including Iran, together to discuss the best course of action. He has the right instincts and ideas. Hillary tries to intimidate him on foreign policy. Having said that her foreign policy is the same foreign policy America has followed for decades; it is the same foreign policy that is not working; it is counter-productive.

Obama stated he will talk to foreign leaders without pre-conditions. I agree. He realizes all countries ought to be respected. I agree. While America is not supposed to be an imperialistic country it is. And the ruling class is loathe to change that. However America's wars, plundering other countries natural resources for our "national" [industrial enterprise] interests and raping countries of their wealth are at the root of what ails America. It is time we change that. Otherwise America's fate will parallel the fall of the Roman Empire.

Redefining America is not going to be easy. Obama understands that. People are tired of the division. The rancor and personal attacks have convoluted political discourse to the point civility and common courtesy have all but disappeared. The blame-game keeps politicians and the public distracted. Consequently a lot of time is being wasted that could be spent on seeking solutions.

America faces serious challenges ahead. Framing the issues are easy, doing something means working together. Divided we fall, but united we make progress. To make America "work" again means changing the mind-set that got us where we are today.

The time is now if we want "change." Obama is the catalyst that begins the process.

[Nonamnesiac]

The Democrats must frame the issue in the following terms: we must immediately, safely withdraw all troops and contractor forces, because the cost of "victory" in Iraq is not worth the lives, limbs and treasure that will be expended by the US under McCain's scenario. We will make a regional deal to guarantee security and to see that al Qaeda does not flourish once we're gone.

If we argue this in any other way, then McCain will win the debate. McCain will say that both Obama and Clinton, by talking about substantially reduced troop levels, will guarantee an escalation in US casualties -- as the reduced forces that existed under W prior to the surge meant higher US casualty rates. McCain will argue that it's fantasy to believe the reduced level of troops proposed by Obama and Clinton will simply mean greater US casualties than existed before the surge and the only way to keep casualties down is to keep US numbers high.

By supporting immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors, the Dems will also attract the progressives who will not vote for them if they remain committed to remaining in Iraq and provide a legitimate rationale for ending the war, as the American people wish.

[DemandTruth]

When Russert ridiculously asserted last night that Iraq COULD decend into Hell if we left, I was waiting for one of them to jump up and point out that WE'RE ALREADY in the middle of HELL in Iraq! We still have American soldiers dying and being wounded EVERY DAMN DAY!

And they should have pointed out that Bush's talking point that he's keeping us so safe because we haven't had another terrorist attack on Americans is FLAT OUT FALSE! We experience terrorist attacks on Americans EVERY DAMN DAY! Just because they're not on American soil doesn't make those Americans in Iraq & Afghanistan any less important, any less American, or any less dead!

And they should have mentioned how FEW of the attacks in Iraq are actually coming from Al Qaeda in Iraq, and how MANY are coming from insurgents (Iraqis who are ONLY fighting us because we're occupying their damn country!) and trying to police a civil war!

AND, they also should have mentioned that Al Qaeda is attacking Iraqis too, and they don't want them there any more than we do. So it stands to reason they would mop up Al Qaeda themselves if given half the chance. They should have said we want the same goal as the Iraqis and our other allies. We all want to live in peace and STOP the killing. We all need to get back to that common goal - we need to rebuild the coalition with PEACE as the true goal this time (not conquest) and bang out a plan to git 'er done!

[amberglow]

they never do any of that at all--and they know they could--they're afraid of the "weak on terror" thing---both of them are.

[hopeless277]

The U.S. will never leave Iraq voluntarily. They will have to be driven out by force. al Sadar's cease fire just draws the whole thing out. Soon, with the stress building on the troops, they will start fragging officers. After that, there could be a total breakdown in in command control. The Democrats will rightfully be blamed. Harry Reid in particular. Even when the casualties rise above 100 a day, no Democrat will dare call for withdrawl. I predict that the escape from VietNam will pale in comparison with the slaughter that will accompany the retreat from Iraq. Tens of thousands will die weekly. And the citizens of the U.S. will yawn and ponder whether to have steak of fish for dinner.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"In debate after debate, both Clinton and Obama have failed to use this national stage to clearly frame their plans to end the U.S. occupation in the region."

It's enough to make one believe that they are not planning to end it!

[amberglow]

exactly--because they're not.

This election is going to be all foreign policy all the time--because that's what the Republicans want, and the GOP have already painted Obama as clueless and mockable on Iraq and terror. The media is helping, as always.

[maddog2112]

It is a shallow enpty complaint. People are not hearing what they are not listening to. You could make the same claim about McCain and all the republican prospects too. The "plans" are out there, they are just not simple enough for a dora the explorer level of explination. they are complicated and details in many areas need to be addresses as other steps are taken. This is an empty criticism.