Democrats on the Iraq War: Election Strategy for 2008
I don’t want to spend too much time writing about electoral politics here– I’m much more fascinated the undercurrents and assumptions that influence popular politics. But I do occasionally have something to say about electoral strategy, as in a short piece I wrote for Daily Kos last night. Here’s what I posted:
As opponents of the Iraq war across the USA hopefully await our chance to take back the White House in two years, we still hear disturbing rumbles that Democrats cannot find a clear position on the Iraq war, both past and future.
For instance, I have now heard from two different sources that Hillary Clinton can never be President — not, surprisingly, because she was married to Bubba, or because she’s a liberal woman. Hillary’s biggest problem right now, apparently, is that she voted to go to war against Iraq in 2002.
Democrats and liberals need to get past the unfair and inaccurate charge that we are “wishy-washy” on future policy in Iraq, or that politicians are “flip-floppers” because they voted to go to war in 2002. How do we get past this? Mainly, we need to focus on the terrible performance of the Bush/Cheney administration, their lack of planning, their lapses in judgement.
The lack of seriousness with which the Bush/Cheney administration has been conducting this ongoing war resonates with all Americans, red state or blue. For many Americans, the Iraq war didn’t go wrong when the tanks started rolling, but it went wrong when Baghdad fell and the occupying troops failed to prevent — or even encouraged — widespread looting. And it went more horribly wrong when we discovered what had been happening in Abu Ghraib.
Democrats, let’s stop arguing over who voted for or against the war in 2002. This war was an aberration and an injustice before it began, but that’s not why Americans hate this war. We hate the war because it is a disaster and a failure, and that’s not something any Democratic politician must bear responsibility for.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:45 am
“that’s not something any Democratic politician must bear responsibility for.”
And why is that, exactly?
While I understand your need to delineate your stance here, I feel it’s a shame to continue artificially segmenting global and domestic issues with labels and start talking about the issues themselves. As people. I’ve often wondered what would happen if writers and pundits weren’t able to slap trite labels on everything and dig down into the more fundamental philosophical and social issues at work here.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:50 am
But Caryn — I am specifically talking about the 2008 election here.
I agree with you that “Democrat” vs. “Republican” labels are meaningless … except in electoral politics itself, when these labels are very real. You said:
“I’ve often wondered what would happen if writers and pundits weren’t able to slap trite labels on everything and dig down into the more fundamental philosophical and social issues at work here.”
I totally agree — that’s why I put an intro paragraph above saying I usually am more interested in discussing the issues underlying electoral politics than in discussing electoral politics. But in this post specifically, I am talking about electoral politics, so I don’t see why it’s wrong to talk about Democrats and Republicans here. How can I talk about the 2008 election without talking about Democrats and Republicans?
September 16th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Somehow I think you can figure out a way — you’re a smart boy. Not only do I think it’s possible, I think it is necessary to return to really solving problems instead of rallying around the same old poles. Electoral politics boiled down mean ultimately nothing and in my opinion is a big part of what is fundamentally broken with “the system” as it’s being used today.
Oh … and I didn’t say it was wrong, but it is tiresome and I suppose I expect more from your fruit stand.
And you didn’t answer the question. Ooooh … it’s electoral politics after all!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Well, as you already know electoral politics are not my passion, but they *do* mean something — a lot — on a practical level. This is greatly amplified in time of war, when the elected presidential administration calls all the shots on foreign policy (Congress and the Supreme Court play a much smaller role in determining foreign policy than they do with economic policy or social policy).
I can best answer your question about why I said Democrats don’t need to bear responsibility for the fact that the US war in Iraq has turned out to be a failure and a disaster by pointing to a book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End by Peter Galbraith, published this summer by Simon and Schuster. This book makes the case that the level of carelessness and the lack of planning leading up to the invasion of Iraq is far below what Americans expect from their leaders. It was this book that revealed the surprising fact that President Bush did not have a basic understanding of the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or an understanding of the way Sunni/Shiite politics could affect the future of Iraq, at the time that his administration had already decided to invade the country. Apparently Bush was heard to remark, when first hearing that Sunnis and Shiites might not agree on a unity government, that “I thought they were all Muslims”. This reveals a really unacceptable lack of basic knowledge and planning.
Two weeks ago at my day job I sat down with my boss and co-worker and hammered out a schedule for a new software project I’m beginning. The three of us were very careful to identify all possible problem areas and worst-case scenarios (the open source software I am planning to use might not work correctly, the design specs could change at the last minute, etc.). Walking through all worst-case scenarios is a basic part of managing any type of project. Reading Galbraith’s book, I’m led to believe that I spent more time planning worst-case scenarios for my puny little two-month software project than the Bush administration spent for Iraq, because many experts at the time were warning that Sunni/Shiite division would doom the plan for a unified government. The President was not interested in hearing this.
When some Democratic politicians voted to approve the plans for war, they were voting for a war fought with forethought and intelligent planning. This book makes the case that the administration’s performance in this war was far below the standard that any American citizen or voter could have anticipated. This is something the voters need to hear, and that was my point in writing this article.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:39 pm
wow that’s long — I can’t read that. Still didn’t answer the question.