Wasting resources and the real fight to protect America

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