The Real Iraq Problem

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

One big reason Bush won the last election, and why he can maintain any support for the Iraq War, is his ability to misdescribe the war as an us-versus-some-enemy-we-shouldn't-embolden problem.  This is the frame that allows him to present withdrawal as cowardly and foolish, while continued occupation is the only sensible and courageous move.  The criticism of cutting and running (can someone tell me what the 'cutting' refers to in that expression?) and the "We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" nonsense depend on this kind of framing.  The criticism of war critics as enemies of America is probably its most sinister expression. 

As far as the future of Iraq is concerned, what we actually have is a how-do-we-get-everybody-to-play-nice problem.  We need to get a bunch of interspersed ethnoreligious groups to put aside their longstanding grievances and see one another as fellow citizens in a democracy.  Given the extent to which the populations are swirled together and the  bloodiness of poorly supervised partitions (several million were killed when Pakistan split from India, and the countries are still often at each others' throats) dividing the country three ways isn't a great answer.  So we've got to find a way for them to live together. 

There's a bunch of reasons why Bush won't openly present plans to deal with the real issue anytime soon.  One of them is that it would require him to take a big loss on a huge rhetorical investment.  As soon as he starts talking with the American public about the various ethnic groups and his plan for getting them to live peacefully together, it becomes clear that the boldness and firmness that he's cultivated a reputation for is not the quality most essential to success.  What you actually need is somebody who can negotiate a complicated deal that will take everybody's interests into account and give them what they want, so they won't cause trouble.  Bush has never presented himself as the guy to do something like this, at least not since 9/11. 

Once you see the Iraq war as a how-do-we-get-everybody-to-play-nice problem, the emotionally charged reasons that Bush offers for staying in Iraq start to melt away.  Running from a dangerous enemy that you should fight is cowardice, but if silly people are damaging their futures by engaging in irrational and vengeful behavior, it's no great vice to wash your hands of them and leave.  Sure, you try to help them work things out, and you protect innocents from mass slaughter.  But when you see that your efforts are becoming unproductive, you're free to go home and let them fend for themselves. 

There's a path here to a Democratic position that resists being spun as defeatism.  The first step is to make Americans aware of the ethnoreligious situation, and make them see that as what it is -- the real Iraq problem.  I doubt that Americans generally see the war this way at present, but it's more pleasant than seeing it as a war that we're losing, so wishful thinking may dispose them to accept our characterization, even if good reasoning doesn't.  Then we can explain to them how a phased withdrawal plan can be used to
reward Sunnis for peaceful participation in the political process,
and prevent Shiites from thinking we'll be their Sunni-beating-stick
for perpetuity. We'll have a good plan for Iraq, while the very terms of the debate will prevent the Republicans from successfully using the unfair tricks often employed against parties who have to argue that we should pull out of a losing war. 

(I'm getting a weird Lakoff feeling as I write this post.  We have to reframe the war in nurturant mommy terms, so the nurturant mommy party can win.  So let's present the Iraqis as kids in the big Arab sandbox who won't share their toys!  And then the stern father types will support withdrawal, because taking care of kids is women's work!)