Why We Cannot Win the Iraq Debate
I was very interested by the response to my post yesterday. The ambivalence many progressives feel about voicing their convictions is frequently based on the following concern "I believe this, but will others? Wouldn't it make more tactical sense to take a position people already agree with, such as 'immediate withdrawal'?" When we think this way, we forget two critical things about polls, opinions and political power. One, there is a difference between what people say they are for when given a limited set of established options and what really gets them excited and committed to action, and two, that what we say as leaders and community members creates what the established options are.
I was talking to a small business owner in Rocky Mount the other day about Iraq. He considers himself an independent voter and is furious about the Iraq war. He echoed many of other people from my district– which covers very red and very blue counties – by saying that he wants us “out of Iraq,” but he was more despondent than excited. Then I spoke with him about the NEW plan for Iraq proposed in yesterday’s blog – a plan that includes withdrawal but only as a piece of jump starting a new political solution. The entire tone of the conversation changed and he was fired up. By proposing a solution that would truly set things right rather than just retreat to a less awful alternative, conviction politics can transform the debate.
For the past year, Congress has been unable to shift Iraq policy, despite the 2006 mandate and 70% of Americans supporting this direction. This is not because Dems did not have a solid strategy for Iraq but because they were so sure Bush would not go for them that they too often offered simplistic alternatives. Conviction politics is not opposed to compromise as an end result, but it suggests that we should start by clearly articulating our principles. I believe that a larger set of Republicans would have come around to a debate if we were clear that the real problem is legitimacy, not troop size. This has the benefit of being true and lending itself to a concrete alternative plan of action.
Despite his disastrous failures, President Bush has maintained the moral high ground. He has not done this through tricks but by being one of the few voices making a truly moral argument. His mistake is empirical, but his principles (we cannot abandon the Iraqis to slaughter, we cannot let the terrorists win) are almost laughably unassailable. But these simplistic protestation hold power because we do not confront the need they are addressing – that any Iraq plan, and any national security strategy, requires a deeper purpose to be successful. Instead, what is our response to that – we are doing more harm than good? We have a lot of needs back home? We took our eye of the real threat in Afghanistan? All of these things are empirically true but they are not moral principles that shape a security policy.
The problem with the Bush proposal, also backed by my opponent Virgil Goode (VA-05), is that it is premised on two factual mistakes – one is the idea that the current government is somehow legitimate and the second is that Iraqis owe us for liberating them, therefore it is their turn to “step up” to meet our tremendous sacrifice. As I said yesterday, I have been part of forcing dictators from power and the Liberians and Sierra Leoneans were largely ecstatic about Taylor’s departure, but we could not separate the moral authority of forcing Taylor from power from the moral authority to do it right and leave a secure nation in his wake.
The conviction complication is that we owe the Iraqis for turning their country into a hellish civil war, but our very presence only makes it worse. The answer is to orchestrate our departure in a way that forges a new, more legitimate political agreement.
So my answer to the various comments is that most of the proposals being offered by Dems are fine on the merits as a compromise, and that any sort of timeline is better than the status quo. But we should always make sure that we first make the case for what we truly believe and then accept the best alternative available. Instead we actually accepted the very core of Bush’s argument by putting various obligations on the Iraqis to meet their benchmarks. This treated as legitimate the very government whose illegitimacy is at the core of the civil war and crisis.
If Dems had made legitimacy the core of the argument from the outset, instead of the withdrawal as an end in itself, I believe we would (1) have won over more Republicans, (2) made Americans know not just that we are with them but that we are ready to lead in a different direction, and (3) set up a strong case against preemptive strike in Iran.
This is why Obama is the major candidate in the best position to deal with Iran – because his case against war in Iraq, even when it was unpopular, was that preemptive strike is morally wrong and makes us less safe.
So I can certainly support longer gaps between tours of duty. I can support timelines for withdrawl. But I will not support timelines conditioned on this Iraqi government accomplishing something because it is aprt of the problem. I would support permanent withdrawal as a condition for bringing all internal (non-foreign, i.e. al qaeda) factions to the table with all neighbors. And I would make clear that the same error that got us into this war – a lack of legitimacy – is the same problem today. Any solution that fails to address legitimacy can help solve other problems (e.g. overburdening troops, getting them the resources they need), but will not solve the crisis.
-----
One other quick note. Michael Snook sent me this reminder about how Paul Wellstone was a model of conviction politics. With his principled stances, he showed that voters often care more that you have your own sense of right and wrong than that you agree with them on particular issues. This from an article about the late, great Sen. Wellstone:
“Even though the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans opposed his position [opposing welfare reform], his support in the polls surged. Indeed, when he finally won reelection by a healthy margin, exit polls found that he had won 59 percent of people who supported the welfare bill, and even 34 percent of the hard-core anti-welfare voters who thought the welfare bill hadn't been stringent enough.”
We didn't ask the Iraqi people if it was alright with them if we attacked, invaded and subsequently occupied their country. Presently, polls reveal that the majority of them want us to leave, slowly or quickly, they're asking us to leave and true-to-form our reply is 'nobody's asking you.'
Just curious. Have we ever asked any Iraqis for suggestions, or even a plan they may have for the best way for us to leave? Hardly, what do they know.
Sad but so true, the stories of occupations are the stories of victims.
October 31, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I like your N.E.W. plan. And you are right that we definitely need more candidates willing to run on conviction and principle. But I believe we can support a political settlement in Iraq based on negotiation among the main competing factions, with regional participation, without leaning so heavily on claims about the illegitimacy of the current government. Why are you trumpeting this illegitimacy?
The Iraqi government may not be the most ideally representative government in the world, but as governments around the world go, it is actually much more legitimate and representative than most. It is dominated by Shia and Kurdish elements that represent the vast majority of the country. It was also democratically elected. To the extent that it is not representative, that is because most Sunni Arab factions chose not to participate, and chose civil war instead. And the reason they chose this path is not because of any deep, inherent unfairness in the constitutional process. They chose war because they understood that under any reasonably democratic constitution they lose, and were destined to lose the unjust, oppressive and unrepresentative position of community supremacy they occupied under Saddam.
I don't like the idea of engineering some sort of political coup d'etat or Iraqi overhaul based on pretending that the current government was not actually elected. What is going on in Iraq is that after the US worked with Iraq's main factional leaders to set up the current constitutional framework, it started having second thoughts once the actual elections took place. The second thoughts are not really based on the perception of an illegitimate undemocratic result. They are based on the fact that the results were broadly democratic, and the US just doesn't like who won, and imagined they could control Iraq through West-leaning quislings. The Saudis and the Gulf States and the Jordanians and the Egyptians and the Israelis also don't seem to like who won, and in the first four cases anti-Shia bias and sectarianism play a big role.
October 31, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Dan K's analysis of the situation as well as phelicity's comments capture the reality quite well. I think the problem we are facing is precisely what Dan K points out - ...the US just doesn't like who won... in terms of the elections and the direction that Iraq is heading. But I'd like to also add a few of my observations...
Firstly we need to realize the we simply have made too big of a mess of the situation with too many players involved. It's going to be virtually impossible for us to do what is going to be necessary in order to establish stability in Iraq - to side with the elected majority and fully support them. This of course means bringing in Iran which would not sit well with many, the Saudis and Israelis in particular. And at this point we will also need to get our troops out of the region or at least out of Iraq (although having troops in middle east period is in part what led us into this quicksand to begin with). Troops on the ground in Iraq are now an obstacle to stability not a means to attaining it. It may seem a bit counter intuitive but it is a fact.
Secondly what we need to realize is that it was we who took the Sadaam lid off the Iraqi Pandora's Box and now it's all out there. In addition, there's no possible way we (us, Americans) can put it all back into that box. The only countries I see that might be capable of returning some form of stability in Iraq is Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia (although I'm far less enthusiastic about the Saudi chances, they would need to simply not resist things). This of course is something America can neither admit nor accept. Iran knew beforehand what would happen if Sadaam was toppled without a clear and decisive plan. They also knew all of the players involved. They even offered to help us topple Sadaam and install a viable working government. (Watch the Frontline piece entitled Showdown with Iran for the disastrous timeline of how this all played out.) We of course didn't need anyone and so refused the offer and ignored the warnings. Look at us now. Not only did we botch it badly causing so much suffering and death, but also gone is any chance that our troops presence can help provide stability. That chance was squandered much like the good will and compassion the world had for us after the 9-11 tragedy. When ignorant people make ignorant decisions you can not expect anything but disastrous results. And why we keep trying to force a square peg into a round hole at this point is insane in my mind. It reminds me of the quote (to whomever you wish to accredit it) -
I see little chance of Iraq ever being even a little pro-west at this point let alone democratic if we continue on this "course". And what slim chances there are diminish daily with our continued presence. We built our middle east (Iraq) strategy on a sand not rock foundation. And no amount of buttressing is going to prevent it from sinking into that same sand. In the end the best course may very well be to cut our losses and pull out quickly and completely. Following this, we should lend any and all financial and humanitarian assistance in stopping the bleeding and rebuilding. And I'm talking about real rebuilding, not get-my-buddy's-company-rich-and-me-too rebuilding. And for this to occur, Iran would be the country to step into the leadership role. In this scenario, perhaps in a decade or two (if we can keep our fingers out of the wounds and not attack anyone else) we might be in a position to build strong and lasting relations with these countries. And I think it neither naïve nor idealistic to think that civil and respectful diplomacy with these nations is a much more effective means to get what we want rather than war.
I know there are many variables working in concert in the region. But there is no chance (zero %) of anything positive or lasting occurring anywhere in the region while we have troops there killing people and being killed by them. This is not Europe or Japan post WW2, this is the middle east in 2007. When people begin to get this fact straight we might start doing things correctly. And in my mind the first step is to get our troops out of Iraq. As I stated above, we have squandered the time we had when their presence could be seen as helpful. We need to start sharing the leadership role which means both sharing the credit and the blame. This is not something we've been terribly good at so it will require some effort. From this we are going to have to accept the fact that we are now going to have less input on the final script entitled "Iraq's Future" than we initially had and initially desired. That's the price of our failure. But if we're not careful we may very well end up off the writing staff entirely.
October 31, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I reject your moral argument. The Catholic Church was right for once about Iraq. It was never a just war. It was morally wrong. You don't turn something that was evil from the get go into a moral good.
Granted, this doesn't sell with the public at large because they have been lead to believe that America is an exceptional nation incapable of doing wrong. That naive belief convinces no one but ourselves. It doesn't convince Europeans or Canadians or Australians. It certainly won't convince Iraq or other Islamic nations.
October 31, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that has been the US intent. "We will . . . turn them [terrorists] one against another"--GW Bush, Sep 20, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Of course "terrorists" are the wrong-headed natives of the countries the US invades and occupies.
Patrick Cockburn: "So, far from preventing civil war (a main justification for continued occupation), the US is arming [Sunni] sectarian killers engaged in a murder campaign that is tearing Iraq apart. . .The hidden history of the past four years is that the US wants to defeat the Sunni insurgents but does not want the Shia-Kurdish government to win a total victory. It props up the Iraqi state with one hand and keeps it weak with the other. . .The US is trying to limit the extent of the Shia-Kurdish victory, but by preventing a clear winner emerging in the struggle for Iraq, Washington is ensuring that this bloodiest of wars goes on, with no end in sight."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2841425.ece
Maliki will now be (and has been) declared "illegitimate" and will be either pensioned off or shot--his choice. The US will install . . . Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress exile group, inciter of the Iraqi invasion, member of the Bush-appointed Governing Council, war profiteer, convicted swindler, darling of the Pentagon, Iranian spy, and the Bush plan's designated tyrant-to-be, the Iraqi face of a compliant, corporate-run colonial outpost in Mesopotamia. Whoopee, the new Saddam.
BAGHDAD, Oct 28, 2007 — Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial, ubiquitous Iraqi politician and one-time Bush administration favorite, has re-emerged as a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy for Iraq.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html
I have a feeling that HRC won't object.
If "conviction politics" means some top politicians being convicted, I'm all for it. Anyone who says troops in Iraq until 2013, off with their heads. Otherwise we need to recognize reality, and the reality is that this Iraqi occupation will never end, and all who try to end it will be called surrender monkeys, the fear of which is why Senator James Webb (D-VA) has been a big bust along with most of the other Dems. I suppose that Russ Feingold doesn't get many dinner invitations.
My personal belief is that a lot of people get into politics for a lot of good reasons, but the record shows that most of them get turned. It's not entirely their fault--the system is fundamentally flawed, as current circumstances clearly illustrate. And some day our grand-children will ask why. "Well, Missy, there was a lot of money, see, and . . ."
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 31, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you about the illegitimacy of the Iraq war – the thrust of my post yesterday was that unilateral pre-emption is never legitimate. But I think emphasizing this point alone creates the impression that we can take a mulligan – admit it was a screw-up and act like it never happened. In my mind, this creates more rather than less moral obligation on the US to solve the crisis. On this one narrow point, I agree with President Bush. But the President's status quo solution misses the reality on the ground, namely that committing to full withdrawal is the first step (not the last step) towards stabilizing the situation.
The NEW plan for Iraq I outlined yesterday was developed in direct consultation with Iraqis, as well as with security analysts from around the world. The clear word from them was that they want a political solution, and that a commitment to immediate withdrawal by US troops is a crucial catalyst for a new political process that could produce something that has been missing from the start – legitimacy.
-Tom
October 31, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I knew how to hack the system, I'd give ya' two 5's . . .
~OGD~
November 1, 2007 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why no plan will succeed. Until it becomes a plan generated by Iraqis for Iraqis nothing will work.
November 1, 2007 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
The point is that "stabilizing the situation" is not an option in Washington. The "global war on terror" which has been foisted on the American people by the Repub/Dem War Party demands world (and Iraq) DE-stabilization, the goals being to further expand the military, with its attendant corporate welfare, and to reduce domestic freedoms. Until you see the big picture it does no good to talk about a NEW plan for Iraq.
Why would the US have axed Saddan Hussein in the face of clear warnings about Iraqi civil unrest, expanded Iranian influence and Turk-Kurd violence if it were interested in stability? Or why did it foster chaos in post-invasion Iraq, not recall the Iraqi Army, train the Shiite death squads, give Iraq a constitution based on sectarian divide, allow the Samarra mosque destruction, fail to control the weapons given to the Iraqis, not restrain the PKK, and pick a fight with Iran, a mirror of the Iraqi fiasco, if stability were a goal?
Iraqis, as well as security analysts from around the world, may want a political solution, just as we do, but have you not noticed? This is not the finest hour for democracy. The popularity of US leaders is on a par with that of the US, in the toilet, and it matters not. They will do what they will do. Hail Caesar.
Besides, how about those Red Sox? If only the Splendid Splinter were around to see it.
November 1, 2007 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the Iraqi situation has a life of its own now. The "loose federal" scenario is the best we can hope for. The monumental and continual errors of this administration have eliminated many options.
But reality is you have a Kurdistan in the north that will play in name only with the south. You have a shell of a government that will play with the Sunnis on paper only and you have some deeply unhappy Sunnis that will not stop fighting until they feel they have an equitable deal. Aside from the outside elements, why not work towards what is possible?
Tom, I like your statement on conviction politics. I agree.
As an aside, I'm spending Christmas in your District. My folks live in Louisa. If you have scheduled campaign stops in late December, I'd like to see you speak.
November 1, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur Silber always says it better:
A Nation on the Edge of the Final Descent (I): Glimpses of the Horrors to Come
Because my title refers to "the final descent" of the United States, I must begin by emphasizing an issue I have discussed in many essays. The destruction of the basic political structure of this country has been a continuing project for well over a century. That destruction has been the purpose of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and it reveals itself in two major ways: through a foreign policy of aggressive, non-defensive interventionism overseas, and by means of an increasingly powerful and intrusive government domestically. . . .
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/09/nation-on-edge-of-final-descent-i.html
November 1, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congress has been unable to end the war because the Republicans have chosen to refuse, and if the Democrats fail to sense or communicate that message they will succeed in failing in '08.
We can't get any traction with reasonable idease or solid plans because the minority is not in the market to demonstrate effective Democratic leadership and they know Cheney will shoot them.
I think it's as simple as that. But you're right about the despondency of being morally right when the whole world appears crazy. My solution was to stop watching the yak shows- I haven't seen Fox in almost four years and I feel great!
November 1, 2007 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
That in a nutshell has always been the hallmark of most withdrawal plans, in fact any plans that can be denominated as such.
But therein lies the rub doesn't it? No withdrawal timetable of any kind any length attached to any type of legislation can make Bush do what has to be done - change his Middle East policy
November 2, 2007 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink