Ezra Klein: Supplemental and consensus building

« When in doubt, turn to Wikipedia | Main | Wal-mart Is The Biggest Donor »

March 28, 2007

Supplemental and consensus building

By Brian Beutler

This is a big deal. Here's how Kevin put it, before the votes were in and the deadline language was allowed to stay: "when that happens, George Bush really will be alone, finally forced to make public his commitment to staying in Iraq forever. That will -- finally -- be the beginning of the end, because the public simply isn't on his side anymore."

Precisely. A lot of people were pretty upset at the beginning of this Congress by what seemed like the Democrats' fecklessness. I was one of them. And I can remember at least 336,298 segments of The Daily Show dedicated to lambasting the "non-binding resolution" "expressing disapproval".

But now I've come to believe that their strategy is the only one that will work. Effectively, they've had three choices. The first, I suppose, would have been to do nothing. But that was obviously a non-starter, given all the reasons Democrats were elected in the first place. The second option would have been for the leadership to, from day one, stand behind strong bills. Bills that, in their substance, would have put an end to this mess. (Bills like Russel Feingold's, for instance.) It's frustrating, but those bills don't pass. And they don't get the Gordon Smiths and Chuck Hagels of the world on to your side.

So instead, they picked a third strategy: Keep hacking away. Make Republicans vote no. Make them say, "I want this war to continue." Make them say, with a straight face, "I want the president in charge." Make them answer to reporters and constituents. These people don't have epiphanies. They will not go from a pro-war position to Feingold's position over night. But they will ultimately be nudged, as they have been, into supporting incremental improvements like dates-certain. Then it's up to the president to veto those bills, alienating himself from members of his own party and from the public at large.

And then we can all watch in quiet relief as the wheels come off.

Cross posted at Brian Beutler.

March 28, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Yes. I believe you've hit on the precise thing they're doing. I had a hard time believing Nancy et. al. were going to sit by and do nothing, and I agree that ramrodding the whole thing through, while emotionally satisfying in the moment, would not produce the consensus so important to effecting real change here.

Then it's up to the president to veto those bills, alienating himself from members of his own party and from the public at large.

And then we can all watch in quiet relief as the wheels come off.

Dear God, I hope you're right.

Posted by: litbrit | Mar 28, 2007 12:28:27 PM

Excellent point.

The power of the purse can only go so far against the Executive - he's the Decider, like it or not, and the idea that the president is the "sole organ of power in external affairs," while controversial, makes a great deal of sense in fighting a war - better one person be in charge than 535.

(note - the famous steel mills seizure case is likely the best refutation of this; the Supreme Court noted that presidential authority is weakest when the executive is in direct conflict with congress, as shown yesterday in the Senate vote).

Of course, this idea takes a beating when the one person in charge is also a poor executive. The only practical way to combat the president in the media is to slowly shame his supporters on the Hill, just as you mentioned.

What do people make of Andrew Sullivan's similar-sounding proposal from a week ago: give Bush his war funding, but make the GOP own the war and take all the responsibility?

Either way, is about making the Iraq War the Republican's baby.

Posted by: The Mechanical Eye | Mar 28, 2007 12:45:32 PM

Not to knock the strategy, which is as good as we're likely to get, the wheels will most likely come off at the exact same time they would have come off in any scenario: the day GWB leaves Office.

Posted by: DukeJ | Mar 28, 2007 12:51:02 PM

I think this is absolutely right...which is why I am getting increasingly annoyed with the people (Armando at TalkLeft chief among them) who continue to act as if the Democrats could wave a magic wand and end the war (but choose not to). (It's precisely the sort of magic thinking we deride in the Republicans: we can win if we just demonstrate enough Will.)

There's plenty of room for disagreement on what the best tactics are at this point. What people like Armando forget is that differences over tactics are not differences over principle. To say that only those who support a particular tactic are legitimately 'anti-war' is to introduce senseless division between people who are genuinely united on the broader goals.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Mar 28, 2007 1:24:31 PM

I think there is a danger here of conflating the goal of ending the Iraq debacle with the related but separate issue of partisan Democratic strategy. A large segment of anti-war sentiment identifies with the Democratic party soley by default. They view the Democratic Party as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Hard core Democratic partisans on the otoh, are far more prone to be influenced by general political considerations.

From a crass political standpoint, it makes a great deal of sense to let the war drag on until November 2008, so long as the responsibility for doing so can be hung around the GOP's neck. Anti-war maximalists are naturally suspicious of any strategy that smacks of such calculation.

The smart response is not to be dismissive of such concerns but to make it painstakingly clear that the DP's strategy is the optimal one for achieving peace rather than the product of cynical opportunism.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 28, 2007 2:04:33 PM

And then we can all watch in quiet relief as the wheels come off.

God save us. What will be the result of our withdrawing from Iraq, realistically? I'm pretty sure it won't be something to inspire "quiet relief," unless we just don't give a shit about what happens to the Iraqis.

The idea promoted by the Democratic leadership that the Iraqis must be the ones to stand up and fend for themselves ignores reality. We're the morons that got them into this. And our memory is selective in another way: those who were smart enough to oppose the war argued that you can't just march into a country like Iraq and create a stable democracy, certainly not in a short period of time. There's no realistic prospect of the Iraqis being able to fend for themselves within one year. None. It's pure, poll-driven pony talk.

The proper strategy would be driven less by polls and more by the realities of Iraq. Hearings into the problems there, pressure on Bush to work with Iran and other neighbors of Iraq, more oversight of the tactics. The strategy of announcing to the soldiers that we think their cause is hopeless while still not bringing them home has been and will continue to be the worst possible compromise, undermining morale and gaining nothing but political points at home. If this bill passes it will be vetoed and that veto will not be overridden.

Liberals have abandoned reality here.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 28, 2007 2:41:21 PM

Sanpete you're assuming a number of things that aren't in evidence.

1. That those who "broke" Iraq are capable of "fixing" it.

2. That the people of Iraq are willing to remain the objects of our experiments in social and political moralism.

3. That extending the occupation will produce a less awful result than ending it in year's time.

4. That the people of the United States, who are the fundamental source of the government's authority, would support the approach you suggest.

If you can produce a realistic scenario that supports these assumptions I'm sure everyone would be eager to see it.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 28, 2007 3:09:10 PM

In litbrit's thread, where I wrote, "We must be realistic about the consequences of our efforts to avoid war," WB Reeves replies:

All too terribly true. I would suggest that such realism would demand that our policy makers defer to the judgement of those whose lives are as "graceful and horrible" as ours.

First, there has never been a majority of Iraqis that has wanted us to leave immediately, as far as I've seen from polls. Since the beginning of the war they've wanted us to leave soon, but not right away. The reasons for that are clear enough.

Second, even if, one year from now, a majority did want us to leave immediately, it wouldn't follow that it would be a good thing to do. We must also use our own judgment about the consequences of leaving. Right now they look far worse than the present mess.

On your points here, WBR:

1. I don't assume we can fix it, but I do think that if there's a realistic chance, even if small, that our presence will help avoid far worse things, then we should stay. Maybe we can help fix it; maybe we can't.

2. I don't assume that the Iraqis will put up with us indefinitely. My response to your point from litbrit's thread is relevant here. I'll add that if our presence isn't tolerated enough by Iraqis to make it beneficial, we'll have to leave.

3. I think it's pretty clear what the results of our leaving will be, at least in terms of scale of damage. The results of our staying are harder to predict, but see point 1.

4. Staying to avoid worse outcomes would attract more public support if our leaders were being realistic and leading instead of following the public.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 28, 2007 3:24:35 PM

Sanpete I was hoping for something a little more substantial than wishful thinking, particularly since you had no problem with declaring unreservedly that Liberals had "abandoned reality."

I would be interested in how you reconcile your assertion that we should substitute our own judgement as to when to leave Iraq, for that of the majority of Iraqis, with your response to my second point.

I would also like to know whether you give equal weight to US policy interests with those of the people of Iraq, or if you privilege one above the other.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 28, 2007 4:15:44 PM

I can't believe the number of republicans and so-called patriots that believe we can't win this war in 18 months. What kind of pansies do they think the American Army is made up of? If the American people say, "We're leaving in 18 months", don't you think they can be victorious in that time?

But it's all "Oh no, our army's too weak, we need another year, we need another 10 years." Just point your bat at the left field fence and swing damn it.

Posted by: M. Peachbush | Mar 28, 2007 4:35:43 PM

WBR, I can't respond to what you merely hope for, only to what you say. It isn't wishful thinking to respond to each point you made. If there is some particular thing I said that you think is wishful thinking, point it out, and if it isn't obvious, explain why it's wishful thinking. I was explicit about how liberals have abandoned reality.

I don't assert that we should substitute our own judgment for that of the Iraqis, at least not necessarily. I assert that we should also use our own judgment, in addition to listening to the Iraqis, which would not only involve polling but consulting the government and other leaders there. I couldn't tell you in advance how the weighting of different views should work, as there are many possibilities involving how strong Iraqi public opinion is, how much it's based on contradictory sectarian views rather than the good of the Iraqis as a whole, what the Iraqi government wishes and why, how well founded our own views appear to be, etc.

I'm not sure what conflict you see between this and my answer to your point 2, so I'll just add something that may or may not help. "Put up with us" isn't synonymous with "favor our presence" or "believe we should stay."

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 28, 2007 5:30:07 PM

I don't assume we can fix it, but I do think that if there's a realistic chance, even if small, that our presence will help avoid far worse things, then we should stay.

Conversely, if our presence appears to be making things worse, then we should leave...right?

We've been in Iraq for four years now. During that time, the situation has deteriorated drastically. It seems to me that these two facts point pretty strongly to the possibility that our presence there is exacerbating the problems. And yet, you don't even seem to consider that possibility.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Mar 28, 2007 5:32:39 PM

Conversely, if our presence appears to be making things worse, then we should leave...right?

If our presence is making things worse than they would be if we left, then we should leave. That "if," though, is plainly false. Do you think things wouldn't get far worse if we left?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 28, 2007 7:01:22 PM

Do you think things wouldn't get far worse if we left?

Unless you're arguing for a potentially eternal presence in Iraq, that's not the applicable standard. As far as I know, even the hawkiest of hawks accept the assumption that the occupation will cease at some point; I think anyone who is at all realistic accepts that when that happens, things may very well get a lot worse in Iraq. There are no good options here.

The only argument for staying longer would be that extending our presence would make the post-occupation situation less nightmarish than it would be if we left earlier. I don't think there's any evidence to support that view, and I think there's a lot of evidence for the opposite conclusion: that the longer we stay, the worse it will be when we do leave.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Mar 28, 2007 7:52:48 PM

I think anyone who is at all realistic accepts that when that happens, things may very well get a lot worse in Iraq. There are no good options here.

That isn't what the Democratic leadership is telling the public, far from it. Pelosi announced after the first nonbinding resolution calling for withdrawal that it had started the process that would stop the fighting. Just as we were misled to get into the war, we're being misled to get out. But by different people.

The only argument for staying longer would be that extending our presence would make the post-occupation situation less nightmarish than it would be if we left earlier.

If there is a realistic chance of preventing the far worse nightmare we expect, even a small chance, we should stay. The evidence about what's possible is mixed. Most of the people there would favor a political settlement, but without security it's hard to produce one, or anything else good. If nothing else will work, then a partition of the country would be preferable to mass murder. Leaving them to that last option is really unacceptable, and it amazes me how lightly that outcome is treated.

I'm interested in why you think the longer we stay the worse it will be when we leave. I can't think of any reason to suspect that.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 12:13:45 AM

Sanpete, I did ask for a realistic scenario. Realism being the standard by which you were judging the Liberals in your initial post. Now, I've no doubt that your comment was heartfelt and sincere. I just didn't think it was terribly realistic since it required assumptions not in evidence.

Your response doesn't fit the bill because, as you admit, you really don't know whether we can accomplish anything positive by staying. You think there is a small chance that we might. Exactly how many lives do you think that small chance is worth? Another 3000? Another 6000? More? How many more Iraqi's will die if this goes on? Is there any end point to this long shot gamble?

More to the point, what is your belief in this small chance based on? You don't say, so excuse me if I tell you that this sounds like wishful thinking. Hope is fine thing but it is neither an analysis or a plan.

"... if our presence isn't tolerated enough by Iraqis to make it beneficial, we'll have to leave."

Since you indicate that there is no way to know how to weigh the varying factors in advance, it follows that you have no means of determining what would constitute "enough Iraqis". That doesn't strike me as a terribly realistic appproach, unless, as Tom points out, you are prepared to maintain the occupation ad infinitum.

As you recognize, it isn't at all clear that our staying will do the Iraqis any good. It's entirely possible that we could stay another four years and still end up with the same choice that we are facing today, only with an increased body count. Which is why it's important to know the character of the damage you fear. Is it the damaged to the Iraqi people, or the damage to the prestige of US policy makers?

Your remark about leadership really goes to the heart of the matter. You say that if our leaders were "realistic" they would attract more support. It seems apparent to me however, that by realistic you mean that they should roll the dice yet again and again after that and so on, until some nebulous point in the misty future when you may decide that enough blood and treasure have been expended. I don't call that realism.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 29, 2007 1:34:23 AM

WBR, you asked for a realistic scenario to support assumptions I don't make. My response was that I don't make the (unrealistic) assumptions you inferred.

It is very much in evidence that if we leave, things will get far worse, something the Democratic leadership is ignoring or contradicting. This is a point no one seems very interested in when it's our side ignoring reality. Like the Bush Administration before us, we seem all too happy to assist in this ignoring of reality if it will help lead to our goal.

And most of those liberals who are saying out loud that it isn't realistic to expect anything but mass slaughter and regional instability in an already dangerous region when we leave are very dismissive of efforts to avoid that. I think it's important to scour every possibility before you abandon to the worst a place you screwed up. That careful examination of every possibility isn't happening on the Left. It's all decided and obvious and nothing more to consider.

I think the fact that it's the Bush Administration on the other side is a huge problem here for liberals, who aren't inclined to take anything favored by Bush seriously, especially in Iraq. Therefore there is no reason to take the possibilities other than mass slaughter seriously, and we shrug. That may turn out to be a very costly shrug.

I don't claim there's a small chance of accomplishing anything positive. Something positive isn't enough reason to stay. It has to be something of great importance to keep us there.

I claim there's at least a small chance that we'll be able to prevent something far worse, by which I mean primarily an unrestrained civil war or partition. There is a rather larger chance we would be able to oversee a partition as an alternative to full civil war, as a last resort. That would still be difficult and very costly to Iraqis, but far better than unrestrained slaughter. Either way, there is a huge gap between the likely results of our staying, as long as we're there, and the likely results of our leaving without having settled things.

There is a small chance that the Iraqis will be able to form a civil society and avoid both the worse alternatives if we can help provide sufficient security and incentives. Most Iraqis reportedly prefer that option, and some of the mechanisms are already in place. The plans are there; the most glaring lack is security.

I don't know how many lives it's worth to prevent a human catastrophe. Quite a few. We have a special responsibility there. You tell me how you would weigh it, if you would do it differently.

What complicates it is the chance that even after we've put off the worst for several years, the worst will still happen after we leave. That's one reason partition, as in the former Yugoslavia, must be reserved as a last resort before withdrawal. That might be something the UN and regional powers could participate in.

It's entirely possible that we could stay another four years and still end up with the same choice that we are facing today, only with an increased body count.

Yes, that's possible, but I think it worth the risk, for the realistic chance of accomplishing one of the two options above rather than full civil war.

Since you indicate that there is no way to know how to weigh the varying factors in advance, it follows that you have no means of determining what would constitute "enough Iraqis".

First, you left off "in advance" in the second part. I don't claim we can't tell, at any given moment. Second, it isn't "enough Iraqis," it's "tolerated enough by Iraqis," which I made clear isn't a matter of how many favor or don't favor our staying. For example, if the Shia majority wanted us to leave so they get on with slaughtering the Sunnis, that wouldn't be a sufficient reason to leave.

You say that if our leaders were "realistic" they would attract more support. It seems apparent to me however, that by realistic you mean that they should roll the dice yet again and again after that and so on, until some nebulous point in the misty future when you may decide that enough blood and treasure have been expended. I don't call that realism.

I say that if they were realistic they would attract more support for staying. By realism I mean first of all facing the facts about the consequences of our withdrawal. I've been very clear that the main wedding to unreality is in refusing to do that. The Democratic leadership is peddling a manifestly unrealistic view that our withdrawal will cause those damn irresponsible Iraqis to "stand up" and fend for themselves, leading to an end to the fighting. If the leadership were telling the truth, there would be far less support for their position. Which is undoubtedly one reason they're making things up. That and the fact that the truth is politically unpalatable given the polls.

What's more realistic about the consequences of our staying isn't obvious at all, beyond preventing the worst for now. It's unrealistic to pretend otherwise, to assume that we know we can no longer prevent the worst.

How do you propose resolving this?

Is it the damaged to the Iraqi people, or the damage to the prestige of US policy makers?

What a bizarre question. I've given no reason for doubt about this, none.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 1:07:54 PM

Sanpete, I found your last response mostly clear and straightforward, although ultimately unconvincing. I don't think that the avoidance of a humanitarian catastrophy is possible through a continued US occupation. The most this would accomplish is to postpone the day of reckoning, enlarging casualty counts in the meanwhile and acruing no benefit to the Iraqi people or the people of the United States.

The US has tried to referee civil wars before with over four times the manpower we now have in Iraq. It wasn't doable then and, given the experience of the last four years, it doesn't appear to be doable now. The chances of success, small to begin with, are now microscopic.

Reality is a harsh thing and all that is crooked cannot be made straight. I don't relish the prospect of a fratricidal conflict in Iraq, which is one reason I opposed this lunatic misadventure from its inception. However, I relish the prospect of fratricide in slow motion, extending into the illimitable future, even less. I certainly attach no higher moral standing to the latter course.

I do find your last statment to be highly unsatisfying:

"Is it the damaged to the Iraqi people, or the damage to the prestige of US policy makers?
What a bizarre question. I've given no reason for doubt about this, none.

I hardly think the question bizarre. If you believe that you have been unambiguious on this point, why not answer the question?

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 29, 2007 1:50:35 PM

WBR, you don't consider in your remarks a couple very important points. One, not all refereeing of civil wars fails. Some works far better than the alternative. Second, it's no wonder what we've done so far hasn't worked, when the likes of Rumsfeld were overseeing it. It's been four years of doing things the wrong way.

I think the level of certainty you evince about what will happen if we stay is unjustified by the factors you cite. As far as I can see, people are driven to this certainty not by clear evidence but by the unattractiveness of dealing with the far murkier facts, and the risk of even possibly being aligned with Bush/Cheney on their most offensive policy of all, which for many is literally unthinkable. I see no solid evidence to justify certainty.

I also note again the great silence here and elsewhere in the liberal blogosphere about the unreality of the Democratic leadership claims.

If you believe that you have been unambiguious on this point, why not answer the question?

You've stumped me again. I have no idea how this could be a question for you. I've only mentioned one thing from the start as the driving issue here: the welfare of the Iraqis (and their neighbors where instability is concerned), weighed against the welfare of our own soldiers. I've called those who got the Iraqis into this morons, not a prestigious appellation. I hope this review clears it up for you: I don't give a shit about the prestige of this Administration in regard to this issue.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 2:28:08 PM

I appreciate your frank response.

One clarification though. "US policy makers" does not refer soley to the current administration. This war, though we might ardently wish it otherwise, is a collective disaster. The highest echelons of our political and policy establishments signed off on it. That they were so foolish as to put their faith in a charlatan like Bush does not excuse them. All who did so are implicated, all are accomplices. That some have seen the light, while a good thing, erases not a jot or tittle of their complicity. I have no interest in shielding the elite strata by limiting a critique of US policy to the malfeasance of Bush, Cheney or their creatures.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 29, 2007 2:49:33 PM

I agree completely with your clarification.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 3:04:34 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘