Re-framing the Iraq Debate

A couple of my colleagues had a very interesting op-ed in the News & Observer today about “A Way out of Iraq.”  Since they are my friends, I'll refrain from pointing out the many weaknesses and logical fallacies (just kidding, Bill) and offer only nice comments on it .  Anyway, the basic idea is that Democrats and those favoring withdrawal need to reframe the debate to effectively counter Bush administration rhetoric.  Here's the highlights:

The Bush administration's justification for continued operations in
Iraq — that it has become the central front in the global war on
terrorism — leaves almost no rhetorical space for an effective
counterargument (the opposition party has been labeled the
“Defeatocrats” and is said to be working on behalf of “al-Qaeda
types”). As long as the enterprise in Iraq is deemed central to
American national security, the only alternative to continued military
operations is to “let the terrorists win.”

The administration's rhetorical dominance stands in marked contrast to
polling data suggesting that a majority of Americans long ago soured on
the conflict. With the exception of a single poll on the eve of the
2004 presidential elections, a majority of Americans have consistently
said that the benefits of the Iraq war are not worth the costs.

Boettcher and Cobb argue that the best way out is to reframe the current conflict as a Civil War (shouldn't be too hard these days) as the best way to change the political dynamics on many levels:

Reframing Iraq as a civil war could allow Congressional critics to
distance themselves from earlier votes authorizing the war and win over
a public that is frustrated but reluctant to admit failure. Further,
this new frame should ameliorate the impact of sunk costs by creating a
new mental “account” for Iraq — the “civil-war” phase that requires
new expenditures of blood and treasure. Finally, it could also counter
the “Pottery Barn rule” argument by emphasizing the cost expended
during the “counterinsurgency phase” and the limits on America's moral
obligation to the Iraqi elite that have chosen the path of sectarian
conflict.

To me, the fundamental question remains: is our precense doing more harm than good?  Unfortunately, it strikes me that the answer is the former and thus we need to find some way out.

About these ads