Beyond Backbone

Kevin Drum's right that it'll take more than backbone alone to end the Iraq War:

Maybe congressional Democrats need more backbone when it comes to Iraq, but as always, it's public opinion that's key. And public opinion just isn't as overwhelmingly on our side as we often like to think. Fix that, and we'll all be amazed at how fast Dems all grow a spine.

But here's the thing. Public opinion doesn't just "happen" -- effective political leaders shape public opinion. The polls show that the public wants a pony in Iraq: People don't want to beat a hasty retreat and they don't want a decade or more of occupation. What they want is to give the war a little more time and then for it to come to a successful conclusion. People in the know, however, realize that that's not a realistic course of action. The job of people who realize that it's not a realistic course of action and who favor a policy of perpetual occupation is to obscure the choices by doling the war out in Friedman Units and getting people to focus on the waxing and waning of the tactical situation -- if things get better, that's a reason to keep trying; if things get worse, that's a reason to hold on a bit until we can turn things around.

Conversely, the job of people who realize it's not a realistic course of action and who favor a policy of withdrawal and strategic reorientation is to heighten the contradictions (to coin a phrase) and make people realize that unless they want to commit to 10+ years of this, we might as well leave quickly and expeditiously. If the leaders of the Democratic Party were serious about ending the war, they'd be trying to do this -- trying to shape public opinion in a strategic way. Public opinion matters to all politicians, but serious political leaders don't just take opinion in passively -- they try to understand it and mold it to produce a political climate favorable to the policies they're trying to push.

Comments

Am I missing something? What about the poll doesn't provide Democrats with a basis for proposing and standing behind marching orders to Bush to get the hell out of Iraq? It appears nearly 75% want us out now or at least in no more than 2 years. It would take the far end of that time frame to responsibly pull back and take most of the usable or salvagable equipment and munitions with us. What does the chart need to show, that public opinion is 95% for an immediate withdrawal? I say Dems are already where they need to be.

Posted by steve duncan | December 18, 2007 12:27 PM

Leadership would be nice but it's just too bad that Reid and Co. are working so hard to make Democratic Leadership into an oxymoron. Any chance that the Dodds, Feingolds, and Webbs of the Senate might have finally gotten so fed up with Reids, Clintons and Schumers of the party to make a play for party leadership? I guess we can only hope.

Posted by Clyde | December 18, 2007 12:43 PM

steve duncan, kevin's point is that people have been saying we want out in 1-2 years for years now, and yet the percentage that says we want out immediately, which should be rising, isn't. this suggests that - as matthew notes - what people "want" isn't achievable, but it doesn't per se lead to backbone-ism.

but i appreciate matthew's optimism, his belief that there are a lot of "leaders" in politics these days. one doesn't want to be too cynical, but no, there aren't and never have been.

and i can assure matthew that during vietnam, there were plenty of people who were actively trying to shape public opinion to recognize that the war was a fiasco and a failure, and there was a draft stirring people up, and yet still the american public didn't want to concede failure, not having, en masse, absorbed the first rule of business: ignore all sunk costs....

Posted by howard | December 18, 2007 1:08 PM

When you add up leave now and leave within a year it is more than 50%, even without a leader. Kevin Drum is wrong - a bit more spine is in order. There is more than ample public sentiment already.

Posted by rts | December 18, 2007 1:10 PM

Kevin's forgetting that there are many ways to put sand in the gears of Bush's war effort - and the Democrats have failed to use any of them.

They could have refused to pass a bill that funds the war.

They could have refused to pass a bill that funds the war without conditions for progress.

They could have refused to pass a bill that funds the war without an exit plan.

If they were at least politically savvy they could have refused to pass a bill that funds the war unless their own domestic priorities were also funded.

But, at the very least, they could have refused to pass a bill that funds the war without a war tax to pay for it.

Each of those tactics take different levels of political courage. The Democrats are either politically completely inept, or they are total cowards.

Posted by Jinchi | December 18, 2007 1:25 PM

Jesus H. Christ, the public is way ahead of the politicians -- and apparently the bloggers, too.

When roughly 75% of the public want the U.S. out within a year or two (about as "immediate" as is possible), then you've already got a mandate.

By midterm elections 2010 there should be tremendous pressure to have us out (though I'd expect there will be some arguments about how great a reduction actually qualifies as "out").

Posted by JJF | December 18, 2007 1:26 PM

kevin's point is that people have been saying we want out in 1-2 years for years now, and yet the percentage that says we want out immediately, which should be rising, isn't.

But Kevin is completely wrong. People don't want an abrupt pullout. They want a smart one. They want the troops drawn down in an orderly fashion over the next year, not a sudden withdrawal 365 days from now.

Posted by Jinchi | December 18, 2007 1:30 PM

Public opinion matters to all politicians, but serious political leaders don't just take opinion in passively -- they try to understand it and mold it to produce a political climate favorable to the policies they're trying to push.

I'm not sure I agree here. This is what Republicans do and Democrats fail to do. So I don't think serious is the right term. Smart is the better term. Unfortunately for the Republicans, creating a fact-free politcal climate and pursuing insane policy eventually comes around to bite you in the ass. So their political strategy was only smart for the medium term, possibly not for the long term.

Posted by mpowell | December 18, 2007 1:38 PM

jinchi, then fine: we should be seeing a big jump in the number of people who want us out in 1 year and we still aren't.

as for not funding the war: do you honestly believe for a second that the administration that began to fund the war by taking afghanistan money would hesitate for a second, under the president's inherent commander-in-chief powers that they love so much, to keep the war going even without funding?

no, i'm not happy with how the dems have played this; i'm simply noting that there appears to be a rather stunning naivete about ending a war when the president doesn't want to end it....

Posted by howard | December 18, 2007 1:59 PM

1) When Fox News asked Ron Paul about Huckabee's ad --with the cross in the background--,
Ron Paul quoted Sinclair Lewis :

That when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4

2) Too bad our Democratic leaders haven't had the balls make that point any time in the past 7 years.

3) Fox, of course, dropped that discussion like a hot potato. heh heh heh

4) People are entitled to their faith. They aren't entitled to claim God is only speaking through them -- or that people who disagree with their politics are Godless and evil.

5) Especially when their actions suggest only a vague acquaintance with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

Posted by Don Williams | December 18, 2007 2:01 PM

jinchi, then fine: we should be seeing a big jump in the number of people who want us out in 1 year and we still aren't.

howard, that makes no sense. People want a withdrawal done correctly, not chaotically. If withdrawal started today Americans would be happy to see us done in a year. If nothing has been done in that time, their opinions will be the same as they are now.

do you honestly believe that the administration would hesitate for a second to keep the war going even without funding?

Wars aren't free you know - you've got to feed, clothe and arm the soldiers not to mention pay them and you can only raid other funds so often (We're talking about $200 billion now, not chump change). No money = no war. Why do you think we're even bothering with these bills?

Posted by Jinchi | December 18, 2007 2:11 PM

1) The Republican Party is responsible for an unnecessary war which has killed 100,000 plus Iraqis and 3700+ Americans. How can ANY Republican politican be allowed to run as a man of faith, a Christian??

2) The Bush Administration --and its supporters -- have been the most UNCHRISTIAN movement imaginable. Which of the 10 Commandants have they not broken? Thou shalt not bear false witness? Thou shalt not Murder? Thou shalt not steal?

3) Why does NO one, for example, ask Huckabee how he can call himself a religious man and yet run as the leader of the Party responsible for the Iraqi war?

Posted by Don Williams | December 18, 2007 2:19 PM

Jinchi, it's 2004. i want everyone home in 1-2 years.

it's 2005. i want everyone home in 1-2 years.

it's 2006. i want everyone home in 1-2 years.

it's 2007. i want everyone home in 1-2 years.

that sounds to you like a groundswell; it sounds to kevin (and i agree) that it's not just a desire to have a reasonable withdrawal (which would not take 1-2 years, mind you), it's a desire to have a reasonable withdrawal that can be called a success. that's why it's going to require political leadership to explain that there is no success to be had.

now, if you can find me a poll that says "do you care whether or not the effort in iraq is classified as a failure as long as the troops are home in 1-2 years" that shows the same 75%, i'll acknowledge that my viewpoint is inaccurate, but until then, it's wise to avoid (as kevin puts it) "poll literalism."

now, as for money, i'll repeat my same point, since you don't appear to have paid any attention to it: we have a lawless administration. it started spending money on iraq when it had no money to spend: it simply took afghani funding. it is an administration that believes the commander-in-chief power trumps every check and balance in the book.

and yet somehow you believe that it would listen if funding were cut off?

i'm all in favor of attempting to end war funding; i simply don't believe it would make the slightest difference as long as george bush is in office.

(let me note, as i often do in this space, that the public voted for an end to the vietnam war in 1968, and whaddya know? 7 years later they got it.)

Posted by howard | December 18, 2007 2:58 PM

I wonder if the public will remember its self-selected timetable...in six months (that's one FU to Atrios...) will we see people think of in terms of 6 - 18 months rather than one to two years?

Or do we just get to start the clock over once again?

Posted by lutton | December 18, 2007 3:09 PM

I don't take the same thing from this graph as Kevin Drum does. It appears that nearly 75% of the respondents want us out in an expeditious manner. The one-to-two-year people are too polite to insist on anything, but would rather it be done sooner than later. If the troops come home within a year, they might bite their collective lip about it, but get over it. On the other hand, the remaining respondents, after subtracting those zany, ubiquitous "don't knows," don't give a damn about when the troops are brought home as long as they don't have to read something about it or see it in the news every day. They don't know anyone over there, and if the present government actually withdrew the troops, most of this demographic would assume we'd accomplished our mission. Leadership is required, but most serving Democrats don't give this nation of goslings anything to imprint upon. The notion that "do nothing and the mantle of authority will be draped around you by default," is wrongheaded and counter to every progressive and populist instinct. If an apple falls out of a tree onto your napping lap, I don't think that qualifies you to lecture people on the rewards and vicissitudes of fruit-picking.

Posted by Primigenius | December 18, 2007 3:37 PM

I don't see anything in this poll that suggests that people are hoping for a withdrawal after success within 2 years.

Other polls make it quite clear that there's a majority for an orderly withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground. Consider this question, from the USA Today/Gallup Poll, Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 2007:

"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S.: to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?"

59% favor sticking to the timetable, and 38% want us to stay until it gets better.

Or consider this CNN poll question (same link - bolding mine):

"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."

39% - withdraw all now
30% - withdraw some now
19% - stay the same
10% - increase troops

There you go: a sizable majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq over the next 1-2 years, they want us to have a timetable for withdrawal, and stick to the timetable even if things aren't working out over there, and they want us to start withdrawing troops now.

But if we don't start withdrawing troops in the next two years, you'd expect them to want the same thing then, because we haven't yet started that orderly 1-2 year withdrawal.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 18, 2007 4:35 PM

Thanks cyclist,

That's a much more precise set of questions.

The problem with questions of "immediacy" is that it means different things to different people. For a lot of people it paints a picture the troops running frantically for the exit and scrapping tanks and helicopters on the way. Combine that with dire warnings of genocide that might follow and most are willing to wait out an orderly withdrawal (Obama claims that would take 16 months).

It doesn't matter that I wanted the troops pulled out in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007. They weren't. I still want them out. And there's nothing about that statement that suggests I demand we stay until the Iraqis start naming their firstborn sons after Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by Jinchi | December 18, 2007 5:00 PM

If you accept the basic historical facts that Iraq became an official area of vital national interest in 1978, and that we've been actively engaged there more or less continuously since 1991, it is reasonable to think there must be a common desire for a reasonable resolution. Would you like that right away, and with a pickle? Sure!

It's more important that we get an acceptable resolution than that we get our military completely out of harm's way. The fundamental argument at this point is whether or not we're likely to get an acceptable resolution by bailing out and trusting to remote control, or not. I think at the end of the day, as in 2004, most voters will decide not.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 18, 2007 5:15 PM

Exactly, and precisely, Matthew. Exactly why are we staying in Iraq, Jim Webb, Jeff Bingaman, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, and all the other senators who voted this evening to tell Russ Feingold and his 9-month Iraq-exit amendment to get lost, yet again? [They're also voting this evening on Mitch McConnell's amendment for $70 billion more of our debt to keep our new oil colony going, but I can't stand to watch this stuff unfold anymore. The rampant amoral corruption evident throughout our Congress these days is unbelievable.]

So answer that, please, Democrats and members of the media. At least the likes of Powell here admit their unjust and inhumane objectives - where "vital" U.S. national "interest" equates to a U.S. right to steal by any means necessary - whereas the Democrats (and the self-interested media subsidiaries run by profit-before-people focused CEOs) still haven't got the guts to stop hiding their real motives for supporting our new Iraq colony behind stale fictions of convenience.

And just to add to the sorry, dreadful record: Today was the day that the United Nations Security Council officially endorsed another year of U.S. empire and control over the nation of Iraq, without a request or endorsement for same from the elected Iraqi parliament, by passing another "mandate" that fig leafs our presence there under international law, past 12/31/07.

Posted by pow wow | December 18, 2007 9:05 PM

I'm curious about the responses a similarly-worded poll would get about another country where we have U.S. troops -- say South Korea, or Afghanistan. I'm also curious what sort of responses a poll would get if it focussed on goals (e.g., a stable Iraq, democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not torturing and killing its own people, not harboring terrorists) instead of means (how long troops will be there).

"And just to add to the sorry, dreadful record: Today was the day that the United Nations Security Council officially endorsed another year of U.S. empire and control over the nation of Iraq, without a request or endorsement for same from the elected Iraqi parliament"

The request came from the Iraqi government, which was elected by the Iraqi legislature. If it will cheer you up, the same Iraqi government has already said this is the last year it will request UNSC authorization for our role in Iraq; next year it will negotiate a status-of-forces agreement directly with us.

Posted by Fred | December 19, 2007 12:13 AM

Wow, pow wow!

"...unjust and inhumane objectives..."? You mean like holding a fascist police state responsible for killing well over a million people with wars of aggression, including tens of thousands with wmd's? Like putting an end to the genocidal charade of sanctions which killed perhaps a million more of the most vulnerable and innocent Iraqis? No problem there for the just and humane, right?

One of our "vital national interests" is in a world order in which there are consequences for ignoring Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions, and the generally-accepted international norms concerning things like wars of aggression, genocide, the development and use of banned weapons, etc.

I would also just point out that we don't "steal" oil. We pay willing sellers for it, and pretty damned handsomely recently. And it's not the US that gets 80% of its vital petroleum from the Persian Gulf, its our trading partners in Europe and Asia who do. Like it or not, we depend on the stuff to have a world economy, and unless you're eating the food you produce, heating with wood, and bicycling to work in an business that doesn't depend on energy for making or shipping things, you're part of the problem.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 19, 2007 12:03 PM

We're responsible first and foremost for our own actions, Mr. Powell, not for the actions of others. When our own actions result - directly and indirectly - in the death, maiming and terrorizing of millions of innocent civilians, who the hell are we to throw stones at the inhumanity of others? We have lost any right to claim the moral high ground about Saddam Hussein or anyone else in the world practicing despotic, undemocratic rule in violation of the will and human rights of their citizenry. Liars and bad faith actors (see the 2002 tales about "WMD" in Iraq and our continuing presence there today and indefinitely into the future amidst an obscene humanitarian disaster largely of our making, nothwithstanding the removal of its dictator) are rightly shunned and dismissed as compromised and unworthy commentators where justice and the well-being of humanity are good faith topics of concern and discussion.

$20 trillion dollars of discovered, and easily-accessible oil - which belonged before our invasion to the nation of Iraq - being diverted, through coercion and force, to the "discovery" and control of British and American oil companies and their bottom line profits (leaving only a minor cut for Iraq) is "stealing" in any sense of the word. Of course most U.S. taxpayers won't be profiting from this theft (never mind the premiums we are all now paying as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq with an oil-ravenous military machine) - but instead of paying Iraqis for their oil in future to help them rebuild their shattered nation, we'll be paying British and American corporate stockholders for the Iraqi oil our national debt and Armed Forces have helpfully "liberated" from the people whose land it's under, if the corrupt and amoral end game our politicians are in thrall to plays out as intended.

It's a crying shame that United Nations Security Council resolutions are nothing but poker chips for the powerful these days.

Fred - Many of those making up the Iraqi "government," which is referenced by our media as though it's equivalent to the will of the people of Iraq, are U.S.-appointed corrupt Iraqis (many former exiles) who answer to their occupiers (along with a minority of members from the elected parliament), in return for security and cash. That's the cabinet with people like Chalabi and the Iranian-allied al-Maliki (whom Iraqis despise), as opposed to the elected legislature which is obviously distinct from the executive, although not as clearly as in our own system (although of course, as in the U.S., the media and the Bush administration are doing their best to make the Iraqi legislature nothing more than a subservient committee of the executive). The Iraqi cabinet, in line with the wishes and dictates of their (U.N.-blessed) U.S. personal bodyguards and promoters, are separatists, while most of the elected parliament, in line with most of the Iraqi people, are nationalists, differing sects notwithstanding. The falsehood that what's called the Iraqi "government" represents the will of the Iraqi people is one of the most convenient fictions behind which our politicians and media hide the truth. Here's more about these distinctions:

http://alternet.org/story/67383

http://gorillasguides.com/2006/07/09/background-to-the-current-outbreak-of-sectarianism-in-iraq/

Small wonder that the Iraqi people, and many other Arabs, hate the U.N. the way they do. I can't say I blame them.

Posted by pow wow | December 19, 2007 2:08 PM

Powell: "One of our "vital national interests" is in a world order in which there are consequences for ignoring Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions, and the generally-accepted international norms concerning things like wars of aggression, genocide, the development and use of banned weapons, etc."

Hmmmmm. When did Powell start becoming an Israel hater and someone who "despises Jews"?

And here we have Powell's incredibly moronic justification:

"Like putting an end to the genocidal charade of sanctions which killed perhaps a million more of the most vulnerable and innocent Iraqis?"

Short version: we killed a million Iraqis at a cost of one to two trillion dollars to prevent sanctions killing half a million more Iraqis than they already did.

Said sanctions being OUR sanctions.

Right. I'll buy that for a dollar.

What a maroon.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 19, 2007 4:40 PM

I'm not particularly Pollyannaish about the way nations, including the US, behave. But it's not helpful to use distortions of the facts in self-flagellation. We are indeed responsible for our own actions, including keeping our word about supporting UN Resolutions against wars of aggression, genocide, and the development and use of wmd's.

I'd like to see Iraqi oil wealth shared equitably in the way it's done in Alaska and Norway, but that doesn't look likely. In any case, whatever oil revenues accrue whenever things settle down will be far more likely to help the Iraqis than the way the previous regime was using them--to build a giant military establishment, launch wars of aggression and campaigns of genocide, and route the remainder into the personal piggy banks of Saddam's inner circle. Did you know that in 2002 Iraq signed a deal with Total/Elf/Fina, the French national oil champ, for the development of fully one third of all Iraq's reserves? Do you imagine that the receipts were going to fund schools and hospitals? Please.

Casualty figures are hard to confirm, but nearly all competent and objective authorities put those since the invasion at between 100 and 150 thousand, including those killed by terrorists. The death toll attributable to the Ba'athist regime was unarguably in the millions, and there is every indication this total would have continued to pile up failing the long-deferred international response. It should be incumbent on anyone posting to get the basic facts, including the difference between Chapter VI GA Resolutions of the sort outstanding against Israel, and Chapter VII Security Council ones. This is really basic stuff, and simply being a boorish windbag is not excuse for not getting it.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 20, 2007 2:44 AM