How can I make such a statement when our soldiers are still in Iraq and being killed daily? It is a matter of framing that Thom Hartmann brought to my attention on Monday night when he guest-hosted the Majority Report. By most historians’ definition, a war is over when one country overthrows the government of another country. We did that long ago in Iraq. What we have now is a violent occupation.
I have thought about it, and I have to agree with Hartmann that if I were writing a history book on the subject, the War in Iraq would have ended with the overthrow of Saddam, and the subsequent years would be called the Violent Occupation of Iraq. That doesn’t necessarily make it good politics, though.
So what? What’s the difference? Well, across the fold I take a look at how this simple reframing can change the whole argument. It could potentially help us get our soldiers out, but may also grant Bush a slight saving of face.
In a war, people think in terms of winners and a losers, and no one wants to be a loser. Within this new frame, we can declare victory and Bush can save face. Why on Earth would I want that? So that we can start withdrawing troops. We must weigh our political desires against the lives of the soldiers.
Bush isn’t the only one who would save face; this reframe would allow Democrats who voted for the use of force to save face as well. They can say, as John Kerry has, that they voted for the invasion (under false pretenses), but never voted for the extended occupation.
Additionally, the “cut and run” GOP talking point is nullified. We have already won, so how could they say we are cutting and running? Within this frame, we are simply leaving or redeploying. Withdrawal from an occupation isn’t “cutting and running,” it is returning sovereignty to the people of Iraq, and is therefore a necessary step in spreading Democracy.
Once we have shifted the conversation to our violent occupation of Iraq, we can start talking about American Imperialism. Withdrawal of troops demonstrates that we are not trying to be an imperialist power. If the GOP opposes it, they show how pro-imperialist they really are. That does not play well internationally nor at home.
This frame-shift also disarms the GOP talking point that attacks on Americans in Iraq are necessarily the work of terrorists. Instead, many of those attacks can be seen as the work of proud Iraqis trying to liberate their home (freedom fighters, as Cindy Sheehan called them). When the GOP says, “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” we can respond that we are fighting Iraqi citizens who want us out, not international terrorists. Or that we are creating terrorists over there that we may some day have to deal with over here. The longer we stay, the more we create.
There are certainly drawbacks to this frame:
Occupation does not sound as bad as war to most people. We are often stuck within the frame of War vs Peace, and we would be sacrificing that frame with this switch. However, if we throw in the qualifier “violent” every third time we say occupation, I think that minimizes the loss of the War vs Peace frame. We would still have Violent Occupation vs Peace, which might prove even more powerful. After all, one can easily argue for a just war, but I think it is harder to argue for a just violent occupation.
Perhaps the bigger drawback is that it does allow Bush to save some face. That will prove too much for some people; no way no how do we give Bush an easy out. But I would respond to these people by saying that Americans are not stupid. They will recognize that it is a hollow declaration of victory. We all recognized how hollow it was when Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier with his flight suit and cod piece in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner. But he did make that speech, so let’s use it to bring our guys and gals home. I am not willing to play politics with our soldiers’ lives. If it is really such a huge concern, then wait until after the November elections and start the reframing in the new congress.
What do you think, good strategy, or political folly?