I really enjoy listening to Thom Hartmann when he guest hosts on Air America (I don’t get him on any of my local stations and have trouble streaming him). He brings scholarship and a historical accuracy and perspective that is often lacking in talk radio.
Anyhow, Thom has been pushing the idea of reframing the Iraq quagmire. We won the war in short order, he says. We overthrew the government, killed or arrested the opposition government officials, disbanded the army, destroyed infrastructure, and seized resources. We are now engaged in what is rightfully called the OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. Hartmann has now written a post at Common Dreams detailing his reframe: Reclaim the Issues – “Occupation, Not War”
I wrote a diary on the pluses and minuses of this reframe here, but that was before Hartmann published. So, I’ll repeat some of that diary as I look at Hartmann’s article across the break.
Now, before we jump, repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
Hartmann begins by demonstrating why he says the war is over and we won:
There is no longer a war against Iraq.
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a “Mission Accomplished” sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had “victoriously” defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars – blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It’s over.
Here is the drawback to saying we won the war: Bush gets to say HE won the war. That could be a deal-breaker for some. No way, no how do we give BushCo an easy out or a victory of any sort. But I would respond to these people by reminding them that Americans are not stupid. They will recognize that it is a hollow declaration of victory. We all recognized how hollow it was when Nixon declared victory in Vietnam as he pulled our troops out. And 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.
Hartmann doesn’t mention it, but Bush isn’t the only one who could save some face with the declaration of victory. 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 use of force (under false pretenses), but never voted for the extended occupation.
Plus, we get to praise our troops for doing a fine job. That helps quiet the GOP talking point that we are against the troops. When given an appropriate and well defined mission, our troops can’t be beat. But they aren’t trained to handle an indefinite occupation, and the GOP is asking them to do so without the necessary manpower or equipment.
Repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
Again, Hartmann doesn’t flesh out the full extent to which this information could be used once we have changed the debate to occupation instead of war. We can conclude that if we are occupiers and most of the people fighting us are freedom fighters, then we aren’t “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Iraq is NOT a front in the war on terror. Instead, Iraq is a distraction from the WOT, and is helping create new terrorists who we may someday have to fight over here. That is ammunition we can use against the GOP. Iraq distracts, and the longer we’re there the more terrorists we create.
Repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
The distinction between “war” and “occupation” is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn’t have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American’s don’t like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won – even when they’re totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan’s adventure in Grenada – it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible “police action” wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war – like the German loss of WWI – can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to “restore the national honor.”
On the other hand, an “occupation” is something that logically should one day end, and, if it’s an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
Thus, this reframe takes away the “cut and run” meme the GOP is repeating ad nauseam. Democrats are not advocating that we lose the war. That would be impossible given that we already won the war. Ending the occupation is a good thing. It is a necessary step to return full sovereignty to the Iraqis as they forge a new democracy. When the GOP opposes the end of the occupation through the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, they are revealing their true goal is imperialism. That is a weapon we can wield against them. The GOP are imperialists.
Repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the “War In Iraq” ended in 2003, and that we’re now engaged in an “Occupation Of Iraq,” then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to “lose the war in Iraq,” they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The “War” is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month – far longer than necessary.
That is the key… getting this reframe to echo through the media to Joe Sixpack. Every Democrat that shows up on the Sunday talk shows needs to say “occupation” as often as possible. They need to correct the host when the host says “war.” They need to correct the GOP guest when they say “war.” They need to say: “We won the war in 2003. Now we need to end the occupation. America is not an imperialist nation.”
Repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
If the Democrats don’t shift the discussion from “war” to “occupation,” the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being “in favor of losing a war,” which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan “War in Iraq,” Democrats need to correct them by saying, “You mean the Occupation of Iraq…”
As I stated in my previous diary, by reframing the quagmire, we lose the power of the War vs Peace frame. However, that can easily be replaced if we say “violent occupation” every third time we say “occupation,” as I did above. Now we have the Violent Occupation vs Peace frame, and the choice is still quite obviously peace.
Repeat after me: end the occupation, end the occupation, end the violent occupation of Iraq
