Barack Obama – Start the Iraq Dialogue, then Own it
The Pew Research Center released the findings of a voter survey conducted around the Presidential candidates today, specifically analyzing their perceived strengths and weaknesses in various policy areas when compared to each other. Voters believe that Barack Obama will win the nomination by an astounding margin — 70% believe he will win it versus 17% who believe Hillary Clinton will win it. However, when pure voter preference is measured, the margin decreases — 49% Obama; 40% Clinton.
I don’t want to spend too much time on the specifics — it’s all available on the Pew Research site — but one area worth noting is where Obama measures up next to McCain. When voters were asked whether the candidates had provided enough information on their policies, 36% said Obama had and 56% said he had not, compared to 67% who said Clinton had and 28% who said she has not. Further, they perceive Obama as “not tough enough”.
In the debate on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton mentioned withdrawing 1-2 brigades per month from Iraq. The typical size of a brigade is 4,000-5,000 troops. There are approximately 180,000-200,000 US troops in Iraq right now, roughly the same number that were sent to Vietnam. That was the extent of her specifics.
Jeffrey Feldman has written an excellent three-point plan of how he believes the Democrats need to frame Iraq. For Barack Obama, sooner is better than later in this regard in order to begin to demonstrate his command of the specific facts and his specific policies around Iraq. The three points are:
- End the Occupation – The key word here is ‘occupation’. Changing the frame from war (a justifiable freedom-fighting act) to occupation (an aggressive, unwanted intrusion) pushes back on McCain’s attempt to frame this as a struggle against Al Qaeda which we will “lose” by withdrawing. When it’s framed as an “occupation”, withdrawal becomes a moral act, an act of strength and respect to the Iraqi people. It also calls it what it is — an unwelcome incursion into another sovereign nation. It is an occupation.
- Move Toward a Diplomatic Summit – By calling for a diplomatic solution and discussion with Iraq’s leaders, the Iraq problems are framed in terms of peaceful solutions and mutual agreement, instead of “cutting and running”, which is how McCain will attempt to frame it. As Feldman points out, if the Bush administration decides to initiate a summit to pre-empt the Democrats, the Democrats can still take credit for it as the ones forcefully pushing the idea to the American people, not to mention getting the Bush Administration to do something besides use force.
- Approach Iraq as Part of a Bigger Picture – Feldman suggests a frame like “Smart Security”, where Iraq is framed into a larger plan for regional security, which would include Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other players in the region. There is no better time than now for this to happen, with the Pakistani election result effectively deposing the Musharraf regime in favor of a completely new government. As Feldman points out, by placing Iraq into a larger perspective, the electorate begins to understand the stark differences between the McCain-Bush doctrines of remaining in the region and using force for 100, 1,000, even 100,000 years and comparing that to a shift in solutions from military to diplomatic.
Barack Obama has some unique qualities in the area of foreign policy that work to his advantage, and he should begin to emphasize these inside of his more specific discussions of the plan for Iraq. He understands the value of knowing the cultural and societal values of a region. He lived in Indonesia during a time of unrest, he is well-regarded internationally for his desire to end the occupation of Iraq and begin to rebuild relationships based on solid diplomatic footing, and he is the polar opposite of George Bush in terms of his approach to conflict. He’s demonstrated an even temper and firm approach to conflict, and has the ability to see a bigger picture. And as trite as this may sound, he does have the ability to inspire, and that is true abroad even as it is here.
One final point. A study was done by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the true cost of the Iraq occupation. Conservative estimates say that it will cost 1 TRILLION dollars. Stiglitz reports that the true cost is 3 Trillion Dollars to the US alone, and that’s a conservative estimate. Obama should hammer that number home, along with what didn’t happen as a result:
By way of context, Stiglitz and Bilmes list what even one of these trillions could have paid for: 8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. Three trillion could have fixed America’s social security problem for half a century. America, says Stiglitz, is currently spending $5bn a year in Africa, and worrying about being outflanked by China there: “Five billion is roughly 10 days’ fighting, so you get a new metric of thinking about everything.”
Recently President Bush tried to justify the costs of the occupation by claiming that the economy was stimulated by the goods being manufactured in the US for the military (the old military-industrial complex). But Stiglitz found otherwise, stating:
Thus, any idea that war is good for the economy, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, is a myth. A persuasive myth, of course, and in specific cases, such as world war two, one that has seemed to be true – but in 1939, America and Europe were in a depression; there was all sorts of possible supply in the market, but people didn’t have the cash to buy anything. Making armaments meant jobs, more people with more disposable income, and so on – but peacetime western economies these days operate near full employment. As Stiglitz and Bilmes put it, “Money spent on armaments is money poured down the drain”; far better to invest in education, infrastructure, research, health, and reap the rewards in the long term. But any idea that war can be divorced from the economy is also naive. “A lot of people didn’t expect the economy to take over the war as the major issue [in the American election],” says Stiglitz, “because people did not expect the economy to be as weak as it is. I sort of did. So one of the points of this book is that we don’t have two issues in this campaign – we have one issue. Or at least, the two are very, very closely linked together.”
Stiglitz’ recommendation?
Far better, he suggests, to leave rapidly and in a dignified manner, and to spend some of it on helping Iraqis reconstruct their own country – and the rest on investing in and strengthening the American economy, so that it can retain its independence, and have the wherewithal, at least, to play a responsible role in the world.
This is an economist speaking — a highly respected one. An economist who is analyzing the risk-benefit of an unwelcome incursion into a sovereign country over a span of time longer than World War II. He has some scathing indictments of the Bush administration, saying that there has been no coherent policy, just a Bush “policy of convenience”. His bottom-line message is this: The economy and the occupation are inextricably linked, and the economy will continue to spiral downward until the occupation ends. Therefore, end it.
The Democrats need to take hold of this and clearly explain it to the blue collar workers, the moms, the dads, the seniors, the college students, everyone. They need to own this piece of the debate by being clear and specific. I could even imagine a policy speech or podcast or video which explains this. The Obama campaign has been so creative with the video that I’d really love to see them communicate a clear and cogent and very specific plan for Iraq using this method.
Technorati Tags: Election2008, reframing Iraq, three trillion dollar war, occupation, invasion, democrats, policy, foreign policy