Wasting resources and the real fight to protect America

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman at 11:20 AM on July 5, 2006.

Republicans are on the warpath again, returning to their old strategy of accusing Democrats of cowardice and treason on Iraq. And again, American frustration grows over a ruling party that uses the lives and ideals of our soldiers to fast-talk their way to re-election.

But Democrats, unlike Republicans, are again getting lost in the details of the debate, while the Republicans--despite their obvious political weaknesses--have kept their eyes, and their words, squarely on the frame.

In a national debate of this magnitude, the party that comes out on top will be the party that controls the frame because the frame--not the details--dictates the terms of the discussion. If Republicans dictate the terms of the discussion, they will win the debate, no matter how bad Iraq looks on the ground.

Two Frames Now Define Iraq Debate

The two frames are: 'War' and 'Waste.'

The 'War' Frame vs. The 'Waste' Frame: What is happening in Iraq?

Whether we realize it or not, the debate on Iraq is unfolding at two levels: message and frame.

At the level of 'message,' the debate consists of Republicans accusing Democrats of being cowards and of treason and betrayal and defeatism.

Also at the level of 'message,' the debate consists of Democrats talking about 'time tables for withdrawl and asking the Iraqi's to take 'responsibility for themselves' and so forth.

But there is a second level in the debate that is much, much broader. Rather than taking the form of the actual words people are saying, this second level--the level of the 'frame'--is unspoken.

We do not hear or see the frame in everyday conversation or debate, because the frame is an unspoken set of rules and assumptions. The frame emerges only when we start to ask a few question to the messages. For example, if a Republican says that Democrats want to 'cut and run,' I might ask, "Cut and run from what? What is Iraq?"

The answer to that question will be different for Republicans and Democrats--and will give us the first glimpse of the two very different set of assumptions, different broad narratives, different frames guiding the debate.

When asked "What is Iraq?" Republicans will say

Iraq is the war.
Iraq is the central war.
On September 11, Al Qaeda attacked America.
Iraq is full of Al Qaeda terrorists.
If we stop fighting in Iraq, then we lose the war against Al Qaeda.
We must win this war in Iraq to protect America.

Democrats, by contrast, when asked the same question, "What is Iraq?" will say this:

Iraq is not a war, it is a waste of lives and resources.
Iraq is a failed occupation.
On September 11, Al Qaeda attacked America.
On September 11, Al Qaeda was active in 45 countries, but not Iraq.
To secure America from future attack, we must control Al Qaeda.
Because we invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda is now in Iraq.
To protect America, we must return to fighting Al Qaeda everywhere.

Notice how different these unspoken narrative are. Certainly, some bits and pieces of the frames emerge in various statements by politicians. But for the most part, the assumption that Iraq is a war is never fully stated, and the assumption that Iraq is not a war, but a waste of resources distracting us from real security, is also never stated.

Before we can see who is winning or losing , we must acknowledge that these two broad frames are the real issues at stake in the debate.

If The Frame Is 'War,' Then Pull Out Means 'Defeat'

Once we see that there are really two frames in the debate on Iraq--'war' and 'waste'--then we can also begin to understand how our arguments (what we actually say) either advances one frame or the other.

Remember, debates are one or lost by the frame that holds the day--so the key to seeing if we are winning or losing is to see the frame.

The Logic Of The 'War' Frame: Stay And Fight, Win Or Lose

If, as most Republicans are, one is pushing the 'war' frame in the debate on Iraq, then anything one says that is critical of the policy will be interpreted and responded to as undermining the war effort.

For example, we cannot 'pull out' of Iraq because that would be mean we are walking away from the 'war.' The war must be fought. If we are not fighting, then we are failing. And a war is fought on a battle field, so removing troops from the battlefield means we are not fighting, not winning, losing the war.

In the 'war' frame, we are stuck in a very narrow range of options. We cannot, for example, entertain the possibility of ending the policy or changing the policy until we have 'won' the war. 'Winning' in the 'war' frame can really only mean one thing: surrender or destruction of the enemy.

President Bush's speech was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln when he declared 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq was a great example of the 'war' frame in action. The invasion was defined by the Pentagon and the media as a 'war of liberation.' So, when the troops entered Baghdad, and the statue of Saddam Hussein was turn down--that was an image of 'surrender of the enemy.' Of course, there was some lingering doubt, since a statue is not an actual person. And so there was another declaration of victory when Saddam Hussein's sons were killed. And then there was another declaration of victory when Saddam Hussein himself was 'found' in a 'spiderhole.'

Since that moment, however, the requirement of 'surrender or destruction of the enemy' so key to the 'war' frame has been in a deep state of crisis. The current enemy in Iraq not really fitting into the typical categories that the 'war' frame provides. We have, instead, this vague concept of an 'insurgency' that leaves hidden bombs sometimes, and blows up vehicles at other times, and sometimes kidnaps soldiers, sometimes executes contractors. Who is this insurgency, anyway? Are they 'terrorists' are they Bathists are they 'Saddamists' are they renegade Iraqi soldiers?

The problem with Republicans who push the 'war frame' is that they have no choices in these insurgency options. The actual situation on the ground in Iraq is making it very hard to keep the 'war' frame in place.

So, to keep in control of the debate, rather than talking about how to actually succeed--how achieve the surrender or destruction of the enemy--they have been focusing on attacking those who undermine the Iraq policy, a category that the 'war' frame also defines.

Anyone who undermines the effort to achieve the surrender or destruction of the enemy is, by the logic of the 'war' frame, a traitor to the cause, a turncoat, a defeatest, an enemy.

Hence, the power of the war frame meets the weakness of the war frame. Its power is rallying the public to the clear cause of catching and destroying an enemy. It's weakness is an inability to pivot once that enemy changes or becomes so clandestine as to be almost invisible. The war frame, in other words, cannot define what is happening in a resistance movement. It can only define what is happening on a battlefield.

Who Is Pushing The War Frame

Anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is talking about 'winning' the war--they are pushing the 'war' frame, which incidentally, is the frame the Republicans want to control heading into 2006.

So, if George W. Bush says that we will 'stand down' when the Iraqis 'stand up' (e.g., when they are able to destroy their enemy), he is pushing the war frame.

But! When John Kerry says that the Iraqis have to be ready to stand down in 18 months whether they want to be or not--he is, unfortunately, also pushing the war frame.

When Joe Lieberman says that he cannot support a timetable for withdrawal because it would embolden 'our terrorist enemies,' he is pushing the war frame.

When John Warner says that we should not pull our troops out because we have invested so much money in achieving victor in Iraq, he is pushing the war frame.

But when Barbara Boxer says that Iraq has been a failure and waste of lives and resources that has made things worse not better, she is not pushing the war frame.

And when Russ Feingold says that Iraq is not the real battle to secure this country, but one small part of it, he too is pushing a frame different than the war frame.

The alternative to the 'war' frame that Boxer and Feingold are pushing is the 'waste' frame, and it defines the debate on very different terms.

Republicans have already decided that they are going to push the 'war' frame as a strategy for making gains in the mid-term elections in 2006. Democrats need to see this and do everything they can to keep the debate out of that war frame and on the Iraq frame that will actually keep America safe: the 'waste' frame.

If The Frame Is 'Waste,' Then Pull Out Means 'Get Back To Work'
The 'war' frame, as we saw in the last post, is powerful because it rallies the public to a very clear goal: defeat of the enemy. But once the situation in Iraq turned into something where the enemy was not clear, the 'war' frame leads its proponents to attack anyone who questions the Iraq policy--to accuse them of cowardice and treason. The 'war' frame provides a poisonous logic.

The alternative is a frame defining Iraq being pushed by a small number of Democrats, which is not about 'war,' but is nonetheless very powerful: the 'waste' frame.

The Logic Of The 'Waste' Frame: This Is A Distraction, The Longer We Stay, The Less Safe We re

Russ Feingold is the single greatest proponent of the 'waste' frame for defining the Bush policy in Iraq, and he has done a very good job at holding the debate. Barbara Boxer is another.

During the debate, yesterday, Feingold and Boxer both made reference to a map of countries that the Department of State made just prior to September 11, 2001. The map showed 45 countries where Al Qaeda was active at the time. Iraq is not listed.

Right after 9/11, the United States retaliated against the country where there was the most Al Qaeda activity: Afghanistan. We fought a war in response to the the attack by Al Qaeda against our country. And that war succeed in defeating the enemy that was supporting Al Qaeda--the Taliban government.

But then, just as we were prepared to put the nail in the coffin of the enemy that caused the 9/11 attacks: the Bush administration wasted resources, lives and time by invading Iraq--a country not listed on the State Department's own map showing where Al Qaeda was active.

The essence of the 'waste' frame that Feingold and Boxer use to define Iraq is just this: we were fighting the war back then, but then we wasted our effort with Iraq.

In the 'waste' frame, the situation in Iraq is not really a war. It is a dangerous, deadly, costly distraction.

Barbara Boxer is masterful at setting this frame when she says things like, "The American people are sick of this" (not an actual Boxer quote, but a paraphrase).

The power in that frame is that provides a clear image of what happened and how the situation in Iraq has made the world less safe.

In the 'waste' frame, if we do not pull our troops back, retrench, and pick up the fight against Al Qaeda, then we are in real trouble. We will grind down out resources, destroy a generation of young people dedicated to serving their country, and inspire more and more and more terrorists to join the battle to destroy us.

In the 'waste' frame, the war in Iraq is the engine that drives the terrorist struggle against the United States. The longer we stay there, the more we feed that engine.

In the 'waste' frame, anyone who does not see the the logic of re-working the Iraq policy so that it refocuses on the real threat to America, is in fact complicit with those who drove the policy in the first place.

And this is where it gets difficult for Boxer and Feingold.

In order to build a coalition that can hold the 'waste' frame, Boxer and Feingold need to really hit hard at the idea of 'getting back to work' in the real fight to protect this country.

We are wasting time and resources. We need to 'get back to work' and 'get back on track.' And they need to keep showing that map! Al Qaeda is over here...Iraq is over here...we have no more time to waste! We need to get back to the real fight to protect this country!

Jeffrey Feldman is Editor-in-Chief of Frameshop.