Arguments in Play

On Iraq, and whatever broader set of issues one believes are implicated in the Iraq debate, I only ever hear one message coming from the Obama campaign, namely:

1. Obama and Clinton disagree, and Obama is right and Clinton is wrong.

Team Hillary, by contrast, is always equivocating between two different ideas:

1. Obama and Clinton disagree, and Clinton is right and Obama is wrong.
2. Obama and Clinton actually agree, but Clinton is more experienced and more capable of implementing a sound agenda.

Clinton Argument Two can be made pretty persuasively. Plenty of anti-war folks are on Clinton's side, and Obama's never really spelled out what, exactly, on the level of doctrine he and Clinton disagree about. But the fact that Clinton Argument One does, in fact, get trotted out (especially when the intended audience isn't yours truly) seems to me to badly undercut Argument Two.

Meanwhile, and somewhat relatedly, I keep encountering people whose view of the race seems to be shaped by the assumption that it's not possible that good-faith disagreements exist about national security issues among Democrats. That, in essence, all Democrats have very lefty ideas about this stuff and all deviations from an ideal plane of leftiness are explained by political cowardice. I'm not really sure what evidence anyone would find convincing on this score, but perhaps part of the value of having an inside-the-beltway corrupt Villager on your list of blogs-I-read is that I can tell you that in my experience this is false. There are lots of strongly partisan Democrats who very much think Bush has taken the country in the wrong direction but who vigorously disagree among themselves about what national security policy ought to look like.

Comments

Clinton is a proven hawk in words and deeds. It's mystifying that "Plenty of anti-war folks" support her. WTF?

Posted by Jay | February 8, 2008 1:26 PM

It's usually those Democrats who disagree who go out of their way to make people believe that if everything were equal, we'd all be on the same side.

They don't want people to know that it isn't about political convenience. They know that is people actually knew they were ideologically pro-war and pro-escalation, that they would lose primaries. They think it's better to be seen as opportunistic, because people can understand that.

We see the same dynamic play out on economic matters, particularly free trade, all the time. They don't want people to know about the distinctions, it's not like this is just about wishful thinking or bad-faith challenges. These people are responsible for their own plight

Posted by soullite | February 8, 2008 1:27 PM

God, if we only had some experienced person in office again like Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior so we could once again slaughter lots of civilians in Central America and Southern Africa which made everyone happy and safe forever and ever after.

Posted by El Cid | February 8, 2008 1:28 PM

This is abstraction. You are speaking about yourself. You are the Democrat who does not have "very lefty ideas about this stuff." Well, those lefty ideas would have saved us from Iraq.

Posted by jay | February 8, 2008 1:30 PM

Exactly.

"Clinton Argument One" gets trotted out, as you say, because Hillary really is a hawk and really does think that Obama is too reluctant to use military force.

She's not nearly so vociferous about this as she once was, for obvious reasons, but she still likes to remind hawkish dems who might be out there that she's one of them.

Posted by gustav | February 8, 2008 1:30 PM

I'd like to point out that bloggers are really very complicit in all of this. I've seen most of you say that there isn't much ideological difference between these candidates, when everyone knows there are, because their campaign position papers are similar. You all know that campaign position papers are toilet paper as far as the candidates actual policy preferences go, but you pretend they are a real window into the candidates soul.

The best way to judge a candidate is by their history and by their backers. Yet most of you don't particularly care to do that, either.

Posted by soullite | February 8, 2008 1:32 PM

I keep encountering people whose view of the race seems to be shaped by the assumption that it's not possible that good-faith disagreements exist about national security issues among Democrats.

Could you give an example of the sort of claim people are making? The above is so amorphous as to be useless. After all, once upon a time Lieberman was a Democrat, and I don't think I've seen anyone claim that it was cowardice that motivated his position. That doesn't prove that all his arguments in favor of his position are made in good faith, or that, if we assume good faith, his positions are good.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 8, 2008 1:36 PM

Argument Two only works if you ignore pretty much everything Hillary said and did about Iraq before 2006. I'm sure there are anti-war Dems who like others things about Hillary who are willing to do that, but it doesn't make the argument any stronger.

Whether it was judgment or principle or political calculation, when it was time to say Yea or Nay to the Iraq War...Obama was right and Hillary was wrong. That doesn't necessarily indicate Obama would be better on foreign policy than Hillary, but Team Clinton's attempts to deny that reality should make people very wary of them.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 1:39 PM

I actually kind of resent Barack Obama's theory that Hillary Clinton's vote for war in Iraq is responsible for everything that came after. I don't think George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were consulting with Clinton about the prosecution of the war.

I would like to assume that our military, when given an objective, would have been given the manpower and the equipment to have a shot at completing their mission. Sadly, we can no longer make that assumption.

Posted by Thomas | February 8, 2008 1:40 PM

Obama's never really spelled out what, exactly, on the level of doctrine he and Clinton disagree about.
Matt, Obama has done a fine job of pointing out that the main difference between he and Hillary on Iraq is that he never supported the invasion and still thinks it was a terrible idea, whereas she voted to authorize the invasion and hasn't yet said that she thinks it was a bad idea. The difference couldn't be more obvious, nor could it be more substantive and important. For me, this is what seals the deal in favor of Obama: not only is he capable (just like everyone else) of calling Bush and Rumsfeld incompetent and stubborn, but he actually understands that the war was a terrible idea to begin with. Hillary either does not feel that way, or she refuses to say so for fear of casting her 2003 vote in the light that exposes her craven political calculus as craven political calculus. Or she's even more hawkish than she admits, and she's afraid to admit that. Either way, she sucks.

Posted by tinisol | February 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Hillary Clinton has a very good policy position on Iraq. First she will demand that the milatary give her a plan to withdraw forces from Iraq. Second she will implement that plan, at the rate of one or two brigades a month, starting in March/April of 2009.

For antiwar liberals this type of specificity is far better than any of the vague things Obama has said on the subject.

Plus Hillary Clinton does not have her head in the sand when it comes to legitimate security concerns. The danger of radical islamic violence directed against the US still exists. On this subject Hillary comes off as far more trustworthy than does Barack.

Posted by uncle anon | February 8, 2008 1:46 PM

The second argument is used in conjunction with Clinton saying that the only reason she voted for the AUMF is that Bush outsmarted her. That's a pretty scary line on the résumé.

Posted by MikeJ | February 8, 2008 1:50 PM

The second argument is used in conjunction with Clinton saying that the only reason she voted for the AUMF is that Bush outsmarted her. That's a pretty scary line on the résumé.

She also tries to suggest that "it is abundantly clear" that everyone believed Bush would follow through with diplomatic efforts before resorting to war.

Well, Hillary, I didn't believe him. Does that mean I should be elected to President of the Universe if she gets to be POTUS?

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 1:52 PM

Matt,

I think you could clarify their positions by including how they feel about their actions in the past versus how they feel about what they would do in the future:

Obama:
1) Past: Clinton and Obama disagree on the Iraq War vote: Clinton is wrong and Obama is right(for practical reasons, thought war on Iraq couldn't be successfully prosecuted).
2) Future: Clinton and Obama agree the war sucks and both want to end it.
Clinton:
1) Past: Clinton and Obama disagree on the Iraq war vote: Clinton is right(going to war was correct but Bush is such a dimwit that I can't be blamed for the poor prosecution of the aftermath) and Obama is wrong
2) Future: Clinton and Obama agree the war now sucks and we both want to end it, but Hillary has the experience to get us out more 'smoothly'.

Posted by kristi | February 8, 2008 1:53 PM

Matt, Obama has done a fine job of pointing out that the main difference between he and Hillary on Iraq is that he never supported the invasion and still thinks it was a terrible idea, whereas she voted to authorize the invasion and hasn't yet said that she thinks it was a bad idea. The difference couldn't be more obvious, nor could it be more substantive and important.

Er, how, exactly, is it important? Since they broadly agree on what to do about Iraq now, and their voting records on Iraq as Senators are virtually identical, why is it important that they disagreed about what to do five years ago?

And even on that five-year-old vote, the difference isn't nearly a clear as you're pretending. Obama has said that he does not know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate at the time and had had access to classified military intelligence.

I don't think you really believe there is a huge difference between them. You're just mad as hell at Hillary for her vote in 2002, madder still at her for refusing to say now that it was a mistake, and you want to punish her for those transgressions. That's what this shtick is really all about, isn't it?

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 1:56 PM

Considering legitimate security concerns as a threat to be countered is one of these things that becomes greatly weakened if that is only because one equally considers non-existent security concers as threats to be countered.

Discernment really does make a difference in these contexts. I personally was surprised that Hussein has no WMDs. I was not at all surprised that he was not a threat to the US. The fact that Clinton thought he was (or claimed to) does suggest a problem with her ability to discern threats. And since the invasion led to our commitment of troops to cleaning up the mess from out invasion of country that was not a threat, it weakens our ability to respond to legitimate threats.

So while I am not sure what threats Hillary Clinton does not have her head in the sand about while presumably Obama does, this does not seem like as big an advantage as it might at first appear.

Posted by Lon | February 8, 2008 1:56 PM

Surely there's a much better way to communicate whatever you had in mind in the final paragraph. Maybe: More generally, the anti-war left remains too dismissive of Democrats who are not against the war or reining in America's global military footprint.

Posted by rickhavoc | February 8, 2008 2:01 PM

Mixner,
We've been over this before.
1. Obama's "no" to the Iraq invasion matters now because the decision to go to war in Iraq was a terrible decision (a "dumb war") and Hillary helped it along. In other words, her judgment on the biggest issue of our time was poor; his wasn't. If that isn't important, I don't know what is. And this is not to say that it is not also important that either candidate has a way of dealing with Iraq now.
2. And as I've pointed out before, the quote that is used all the time to suggest that Obama migh have voted differently if he'd been in the Senate is nothing more than an example of a reasonable man making the reasonable admission that OF COURSE he might have voted differently if he'd been privy to information that did not and has not seen the light of day!

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 2:06 PM

From Media Matters on the Obama "inconsistency" issue:
Summary: In its analysis of a televised advertisement stating that Sen. Barack Obama "opposed [the] Iraq war from the start," the Associated Press reported that Obama, when asked by The New York Times in 2004 how he would have voted on the resolution to use force against Iraq, "not[ed] he had not seen intelligence reports that fellow Democrats had seen" and then replied, "What would I have done? I don't know." In fact, Obama's full statement as reported in the Times was: "But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 2:11 PM

I don't think you really believe there is a huge difference between them. You're just mad as hell at Hillary for her vote in 2002, madder still at her for refusing to say now that it was a mistake, and you want to punish her for those transgressions

As Ackerman pointed out recently she still does not see her vote as a mistake, she sees nothing to apologize for. There lies the difference between the 2 candidates.
As Omaba said in the last debate he wants to change the mindset that pulled us into the war, while Hillary is still waist deep in the big mindset.

I'm not mad at her, I think she's wrong.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 8, 2008 2:11 PM

Thanks for that Media Matters information on Obama. I never thought he was telling the whole truth about his position on Iraq and now I see I was right.

Posted by uncle anon | February 8, 2008 2:27 PM

I don't think you really believe there is a huge difference between them. You're just mad as hell at Hillary for her vote in 2002, madder still at her for refusing to say now that it was a mistake, and you want to punish her for those transgressions

Yes. Yes. Yes. She should be punished. She should serve as an example to Democrats in the future who have to make a similar decision. They should know that there will be a price to pay when you cast these kind of cynical, calculating votes. Bill wasn't lying when he said he was against the war from the beginning. He was! He just didn't say it out loud. And neither did Hillary and now look at what they've enabled. They are up in arms today--shocked that someone would use the word "pimp" and their precious daughter's name in the same sentence. Yet these are the same people who facilitated the deaths of other people's children. This is how it works--some kids die in Iraq and others plan beautiful weddings or collect fat hedge fund checks.

Posted by jay | February 8, 2008 2:34 PM

In what way were you right? Because he acknowledged the possibility that if he were privy to secret information he might think differently about a subject?

What reasonable human being wouldn't do that?

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Thomas said: I would like to assume that our military, when given an objective, would have been given the manpower and the equipment to have a shot at completing their mission. Sadly, we can no longer make that assumption.

Well, I think Hillary of all people should've been wary considering what happened in Somalia during her husband's presidency(in spite of success in Bosnia- Somalia's lesson is that nothing is a sure bet when it comes to military operations). Which makes me suspect even more so that her vote was based purely on politics rather than principle. At the time of the vote, she probably made the correct calculus that she would be perceived as weak and thus slimed in the General Election if she voted against the war. If she voted for the war and it failed, then the Republican candidate still would have no ammo against her, having voted for it themselves, but she would still have the advantage of being able to criticize the prosecution of the war(which she has done). Politically, it was a win-win situation for her. I think her problem is/was that she wasn't counting on running against a person within her own party who didn't vote yes on the war.

Posted by kristi | February 8, 2008 2:40 PM

shorter uncle anon: "I would change my mind if the evidence warranted it = I'm deceiving you"

That's why politician's play these games with each other's words. Enough people are just that dumb.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Although I believe there are some fairly substantial differences in the way Clinton and Obama look at the globe, we have to recognize that this an American election. It is customary during such occasions for us all to affect collective stupidity and stop talking about serious matters in frank terms. That's because many of these serious matters are .. um ... electorally delicate.

Obama said in a recent interview in Paris Match that he wanted to plan a summit between the United States and Muslim nations to start "an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between Muslims and the West." He was hammered for this by some outfit called the "Republican Jewish Coalition," which is apparently opposed to the bridging of any gaps of any kind between us and the evil Mohammedans. They were also miffed that Obama had failed during that interview to affirm Israel's right to exist. (I hear that later that day, Obama ordered a plate of Coq au Vin at a local bistro, and failed once again while placing his order to affirm Israel's right to exist.)

However, I suggest that we agree not to talk about this issue - at least not on this side of the Atlantic - because it could all be a bit embarrassing and unpleasant.

During the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, Kofi Annan and Tony Blair came forward with a proposal to end the conflict and introduce an international force into Lebanon. Later that same day, Hillary Clinton took to the streets of New York with a crowd of fanatics who pilloried the UN and our European allies for their spineless concerns about peace and stability in the Middle East, and the niceties of international law. Clinton thundered about Syria and Iran. and sounded for all the world not much different than those neoconservative Americans who were calling at the time for an expansion of the conflict into Syria. Barack Obama, while offering the standard tokens fealty to Israel, did not engage in this sort of rhetoric.

However, I suggest that this is another issue that we should agree not to talk about, because we wouldn't want the word to get around that the two candidates might actually differ in their assessments of the unmitigated wonderfulness and moral infallibility of Israel and its actions.

For about a year prior to the release of the NIE, Hillary Clinton banged the drum loudly about Iran, and even tried to run to Bush's right on the issue a few times, suggesting that Bush had not been sufficiently confrontational toward the Hitlerian Nuclear Mullahs. Her stridency culminated with her support for Lieberman-Kyl, and would probably still be going strong had not the NIE come along to take the wind out of the Persophobes' sails. During this time, Obama established a position in favor of opening up discussions with the Iranians.

Yet once again, this is probably one of those issues that we should agree not to talk about, because we wouldn't want anyone to be left with the impression that either of our two glorious front-runners has any cognitive deficiencies when it comes to the ability to entertain paranoid fantasies about the Great Expanding Iranian Reich or the Green Shia Curtain descending across the Middle East.

In fact, I would recommend that people forbear from even reading about any of the two candidates' statements and positions on these dangerous topics. If they were to read these statements, they might get some bright ideas and start reading between the lines. They might then start to suspect that beneath the incredibly cautious words about the Middle East, one can discern a fairly significant difference in orientation and outlook. And we wouldn't want that to happen.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 8, 2008 3:03 PM

Hillary Clinton has a very good policy position on Iraq. First she will demand that the milatary give her a plan to withdraw forces from Iraq. Second she will implement that plan, at the rate of one or two brigades a month, starting in March/April of 2009.

Well, given her plan includes a massive US diplomatic presence in Baghdad for the forseeable future how is this plan in any way feasible?

Who will be protecting the Green Zone? Private contractors?

Who will protect the required supply lines for our SuperEmbassy? Iraqis?

Posted by Davebo | February 8, 2008 3:09 PM

I don't understand why so many of the same Democrats who insisted we had to give our nominee a pass on his Iraq vote in 2004, when there was still some benefit (to the country) in arguing against the war and for its rapid end, now count Clinton's vote as an insurmountable obstacle to her getting the nomination. Why didn't Kerry "deserve to be punished?"

Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

It is too late now to save ourselves from all the worst consequences of an extended occupation of Iraq. The question before us today, the one that will be posed in the general election, isn't whether the war was right or wrong, or who was right or wrong about the war, but how we pull back or proceed without creating too much chaos and blowback, and how and how long we will maintain a presence in the region. On that question, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two Democratic contenders.

Posted by mary | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM

Mary,

Why do you think we've only got enough room in this election for precisely ONE question relating to the Iraq war? Why aren't you interested in debating whether or not the war was wrong in the first place?

If your house was on fire, I'm sure you'd be mainly concerned with extinguishing the flames. But wouldn't you be curious if someone said, "Hey, I'm pretty sure this fire wasn't an accident. And I'm pretty sure it was, in fact, arson. And I'm pretty sure I can tell you who did it"?

As for the Kerry/Clinton "hypocrisy," I think it was dumb that we nominated Kerry precisely because his vote for the war was such an albatross. But there was no sense lamenting it at the time because once he had the nomination we didn't have any choice but to support him. Right now, we've got a choice between a Dem who supported the Iraq invasion and another who did not. That's why this matters.

FWIW, Kerry did deserve to be punished, and he was. HE LOST THE ELECTION and much credibility.

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 3:48 PM

Dan,

I believe you've pointed out the crux of the problem...candidates who want any kind of establishment support are straightjacketed to a certain extent in what they can say...otherwise they will be branded as 'radical', 'naive', or 'weak'...that's just the sad reality of our times. So, we are all forced to read between the lines on foreign policy. And even then, change must come very slowly. Just look at Condi, as an example. She had to win an endurance contest against Rumsfeld and Cheney to finally get her chance to try any sort of diplomacy and use of soft power.

Posted by kristi | February 8, 2008 3:52 PM

Clinton will either keep her promise and begin taking us out of Iraq within 60 days of assuming office (perhaps, the reckless strategy, but if she relishes factional battle here so much, she will swallow it there in whatever form it comes), or else find reason to stay, setting the stage for some other president to actually get us out (the Oslo, Camp David, Taba strategy). Obama, one wishes, will begin a responsible strategy of phased reductions with a soft target of 18 months, during which we will be working with the numerous factions, Iraq's neighbors, and concerned parties to achieve a post-American balance that can stand on its own, or not. Obama will try to be fully engaged in the outcome, but he will wash our hands of it militarily. McCain, meanwhile, will take as long as it takes before he realizes he can choose the first Clinton option or the Obama approach.

Posted by The Other Alan | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM

I agree with mary @ 3:29.

I also agree with Matt in disagreeing with those who think "...it's not possible that good-faith disagreements exist about national security issues among Democrats."

Some who feel this way are just hopeless conspiracy junkies who can't imagine that anyone they disagree with could possible have any but the worst possible motives. But most seem to be simply misinformed. Anyone who imagines that our entire Iraq predicament was ginned up out of thin air by a group of deviants in the Bush White House might also imagine that Hillary's vote in 2002 was at best an inexplicable mistake. People who had actually been dealing with war in Iraq since 1991, including Democrats like Gephardt, both Kerry's, the entire Clinton national security team, etc., see things from a different perspective.

I would just point out that while there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two Democrat contenders, John McCain intends to win the war. Inhabitants of the lefty echo chamber may be surprised with how that plays in November.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM

Seems to me that Team Obama also has two different ideas:

• Obama and Clinton disagree, and Obama is right and Clinton is wrong.
  
• Obama and Clinton actually agree, but Obama has better judgment, stronger principles and is more persuasive and is therefore more capable of implementing a sound agenda.

Posted by Tractarian | February 8, 2008 5:12 PM

There are lots of strongly partisan Democrats who very much think Bush has taken the country in the wrong direction but who vigorously disagree among themselves about what national security policy ought to look like.

From the silence of big name Dems so far, they all do seem to agree that the U.S. should be spending 700 billion the next year on the military. They are, in other words, lock n stock members of the Petro-Gun club. The movement to stop the bleeding out of American resources to the Pentagon, which will have the nice effect of reversing America's pre-emptive war behavior, will surely not flow from the top. Obama and Clinton seemingly are both happy with Bush's military insanity. The push against this will have to come from Congress, which is why, perhaps, the most important thing that will happen in November will be the number of new Democratic senators and representatives that will be elected. It is possible the House will be overwhelmingly Democratic, but the Senate definitely needs to go that way.

Posted by roger | February 8, 2008 5:14 PM

John McCain intends to win the war

The road to a 100-year war is paved with good intentions..

Posted by Tractarian | February 8, 2008 5:15 PM

tinisoli -

"Why aren't you interested in debating whether or not the war was wrong in the first place?"

Because we are 5 years into it, because most Democrats and the general public (including many of the Independents and moderate Republicans who we are hoping to swing to our side in November) didn't object to it at the time, and because we we win nothing by belaboring the point about how wrong they were. "I told you so" just isn't a useful campaign theme.

Furthrmore, lots of people who thought it was a good idea in 2003 know it was a bad idea today. And the hardcore of war supporters who haven't changed their minds aren't going to change their minds now. So for those of us who thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning, that argument is over. People either agree with us now, or they will never agree with us.

The only arguments left are over how and when we get out, and whether getting out will have better or worse consequences for us than staying in and trying to stablilize the situation over a long period of time.

The McCain position is that we are stabilizing the situation and therefore we can stay, and should stay, because the consequences of leaving would be worse than the burden of staying. He calls that (staying and stabilizing) "victory." The Democratic position is basically that we should leave, because the burden of staying has and will continue to weaken us elsewhere (around the world, in the region, and domestically), and, furthermore, that we can leave without creating more chaos in the region than we already have. (McCain calls that "defeat.")

That's how the argument is going to break down. And frankly, the people who will be deciding which side of the argument they are ready to embrace are going to be the same people who, for the most part, didn't object when the war started, and didn't vote to change direction when they had a chance in 2004.

More important than trying to convince that majority of people -- who worried about "looking weak" after 9/11 and still worry about that today -- that the war was wrong is convincing them that our Presidential candidate can end it and pull us out without consequences that look too much like weakness and "defeat." That's vitally important -- because, frankly, one way or another, sooner or later, we HAVE to leave. For a whole range of reasons, we simply can not afford to proceed in this way indefinitely. So it is much more important for the Democratic candidate, at this point, to make good, clear, convincing arguments for why and how we can get out without suffering too many bad consequences, than it is to belabor the point about whether the war was a bad idea in the first place.

Posted by mary | February 8, 2008 5:32 PM

Yes of couse there's lots of room for bipartisanship within the Democratic party. And the idea that any significant part of the disagreement with the "left" position is due to cowardice is ludicrous. There's more diversity in the Democratic party than you might think.

After all, there is a fair number of DLC/moderate types who think that hoax-driven genocide and torture are legitmate tools of foreign policy. You can't just say they're all cowards. You have to allow for the fact that Democratic thinking is not all monolithic and some Democrats are simply sincere about supporting genocide.

Enough with all the political correctness! Sheesh.

Posted by The Fool | February 8, 2008 5:46 PM

Robert Powell --

"John McCain intends to win the war. Inhabitants of the lefty echo chamber may be surprised with how that plays in November."

I agree (that it will play better than the "lefty echo chamber" would like to admit).

That's why it might be better for the Democrats, instead of belaboring the point about who was right or wrong about the war, to simply declare that we HAVE "won" and now we can come home.

Posted by mary | February 8, 2008 5:48 PM

That's why it might be better for the Democrats, instead of belaboring the point about who was right or wrong about the war, to simply declare that we HAVE "won" and now we can come home.

I totally agree with that and I think the Dem nominee would be crazy not to use the "declaring victory" strategy. It simultaneously gives voters a strong reason to bring the troops home, and it puts McCain in a position where he's saying our military hasn't won yet (i.e., is losing).

Except I don't see why the Dem nominee can't do both: (1) declare victory, and (2) argue that they were right about the war from the start.

Well, I guess the Dem nominee can't do (2) if it's not true... but you get my point.

Posted by Tractarian | February 8, 2008 6:06 PM

I don't see the basis for Argument 2.

Obama wants to get us out of Iraq in ~16 months.

Clinton wants to get us out of Iraq eventually.

Big difference.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 8, 2008 6:13 PM

Mary,

Not only was Hillary not right from the start, she has never admitted her position was wrong. As Spencer Ackerman put it "Clinton's Iraq position is a morass of cowardice and opportunism"
Just last week she claimed to have done due diligence before her vote, yet she admits to not reading the actual intelligence reports. I call that incompetence.

Yes, if it comes down to it I will vote for her in November (least of 2 evils), but the question is why should you support her now?

Posted by BJD | February 8, 2008 6:43 PM

I really think the winning argument in Iraq is going to get pretty simple this summer. To stay in Iraq and 'win', giving that word the broad sense of keeping our guys in the central government and operating as Iraq's combined police force/army, is going to take a lot of money - 200 billion on up. The Dems can simply say that money should be spent at home, and keep repeating it. As more and more homeowners send their jingle jangle mail to the bank, more and more folks are going to question the sanity of spending money to prove that the powderpuff warmongers were right. Go to the Florida coasts, where property can't even find insurance now, and say let's bring that money back home - I think you will find a pretty welcoming reception.

The war is, of course, a strategic vanity, unnecessary from the point of view of America's interests, which helps - we could withdraw tomorrow and it would make no difference whatsoever to anybody in this country. But pretending that we fought the war for serious reasons is probably politically wise. Still, the money question feeds right into McCain's callousness about the economy. Link the war and the economy, do it at every juncture, make sure the press does not compartmentalize them - they are, after all, attached at the hip - and you have a nice political strategy for victory.

After all, if McCain was right about increasing the forces in Iraq, then he has to advocate continuing to spend the kind of money we are spending right now, or be hoist by his own logic. If he claims that the surge is so successful that we can start spending less money, why, that leads directly to withdrawing troops, and lots of them - or putting them in a very vulnerable position.

Posted by roger | February 8, 2008 6:56 PM

Obama's never really spelled out what, exactly, on the level of doctrine he and Clinton disagree about.

How about not starting stupid fucking wars. That's one disagreement right there.

Posted by ed | February 8, 2008 7:46 PM

Obama wants to get us out of Iraq in ~16 months. Clinton wants to get us out of Iraq eventually. Big difference.

Actually, Obama's position, at least as reported on his website, is not at all clear. His website does say that he will "have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." But then it adds:

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

No numbers or timescale are given for these troops Obama will keep in Iraq. It's also a bit confusing that he says he will remove all "combat brigades" but may keep troops in Iraq "to carry out targeted strikes." As usual with Obama, a careful reading of his policy statements raises more questions than it answers.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 7:51 PM

Wow, I wrote the above, about making Iraq all about the economy, before I read the latest AP poll .

I have a feeling this poll will be tut tutted. People who will claim the death tax was holding American productivity hostage so we were gonna resemble Somalia will suddenly get all nit picky with figures. That's to be expected. But it is a wonderful demagogic point. The problem is, I think the Dem leadership will think that it may be too successful, causing us to question the whole, over the top military welfare system we've had in place for decades. So I wonder if they will use the obvious opening... or not. After all, Iraq is working for the Dems like abortion works for the GOP - it is a great motivator, as long as your politicians can then forget about it once they are elected. Worked like a charm in 2006.

If Obama really is different, he should definitely start working the economic angle.

Posted by roger | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM

Yes, Matt, us Democrats also have different perceptions of very specific things that are written down in black and white.

I give you a lot of the credit for formulating the following equation: AUMF = vote for war = vote for the invasion and plunder of Iraq. That equation has led to a lot of demagoguery and foolishness.

Posted by little ole jim | February 8, 2008 9:00 PM

"There are lots of strongly partisan Democrats who very much think Bush has taken the country in the wrong direction but who vigorously disagree among themselves about what national security policy ought to look like."

Yeah, well, if you deal with issues on the superficial plane you do, Matt, that makes sense.

Once one looks at the bottom line, however, this merely means that partisan Democrats don't have any more of a clue about "national security" than the Republicans do.

And the reason for that is Democrats are merely the left wing of the "War Party".

If you operate on the basis - as you do - that the US has some sort of "moral" or "ethical" "duty" to police the world to some degree or even "defend national interests" - which, as you've said, nobody (including you) cares to define - then you end up with wars and entanglements that lead to wars.

For a lot of people, the issue is much more straightforward:

1) Stop supporting foreign governments of any kind - with especial reference to the Saudis and Israel - with weapons and foreign aid.

2) Pull the US military bases home.

3) Don't give a shit when a bunch of morons start killing each other in great big bleedin' batches in some Third World hell hole.

4) Try to stop gaining control over natural resources in other countries and simply pay fair market price for them when feasible - and pay for the technology to obsolete them when it's not.

5) Redefine "national security" to mean the physical defense of the continental US and its possessions from any FEASIBLE military attack - not blown-up hypothetical "threats" from countries whose military budgets are one percent of ours and non-state actors who could be overwhelmed by any local US police department.

6) Get rid of the military-industrial complex and its control over US politicians.

But why do I bother? As the crook said in "Gorky Park", "You see, corruption is part of us. All of us. The very heart of us."

None of this is going to happen as long as the majority of the US electorate is either stupid or corrupt.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 11:17 PM

And once again, the discussion devolves into the same old, same old:

"Obama was against the war, Hillary wasn't!"

"No, Obama voted to support the troops!"

"No, Obama will get out us out of Iraq - someday."

"No, Hillary will get us out of Iraq - someday."

Christ, give it a rest, will ya?

As I've been saying for weeks now to absolutely no interest, the problem for BOTH Obama and Clinton is: what are they going to do NEXT - ASIDE FROM Iraq?

Neither Obama nor Clinton have CLUE ONE about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran!

Wake the fuck up!

What good does it do to "get out of Iraq" if we immediately redeploy to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran?

Neither candidate has said anything intelligent about dealing with those issues!

(For the record, McCain will start lobbing nukes on Day One! Anybody see the suggestion today that John Bolton is being groomed to be McCain's Secretary of State? THAT freakazoid?)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 11:32 PM

On the "declare victory" strategy:

We thought we won in 1991, big parade and everything. Unfortunately we continued to spend tens of billions of dollars and run more or less continuous combat operations in over and around Iraq for the next twelve years. One of the results was our complicity in the deaths of over a million Iraqis, about half of them children, by the enforcement of an embargo that actually tightened the regime's grip on power. According to big-sample, good-methodology polls conducted about twice a year by Gallup throughout this period, always a majority of voters, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging nearly 2:1 for the entire period, answered "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support the use of American troops for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?".

Most of us think that if we're dragged into a war by an aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism, we should try to win rather than play for a tie. Many of us are fed up with the ongoing botching of the job that has now spanned three administrations of both parties. This should not be confused with a willingness to surrender to an ill-defined enemy with no possibility of military victory, no program for governance, and no chance of actually taking power in Iraq.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 9, 2008 4:15 AM

Well, it's very easy to distinguish the political
opportunists: Just watch if they stick to their guns when the common wisdom changes...

And that's one of the differences between McCain and
Hillary which the GOP will point out (and I'm a Democrat, BTW).

Posted by Yoni | February 9, 2008 8:24 AM

It's hegemony vs. post hegemony.

Clinton (and McCain) are promising continued attempts at hegemony.

Obama is suggesting (mildly) post-hegemony.

Obama is trading one kind of exceptionalism (hegemonic control) for another (the fact that a 'guy like him can be president of america.')

Posted by mike | February 9, 2008 1:16 PM

At some level, the rhetorical differences are as important as the substantive differences, particularly when you factor in the limits Congress, the military, and the media will place on a Democratic president. To refer to a previous Yglesias post,

the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him.... We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security...

Honestly, I really can't quite see how Clinton succeeds in differentiating herself from McCain on much of foreign policy. Though, to be fair, I should say I do agree with a lot of what Richard Steven Hack wrote above, so my positions can be safely ignored...

Posted by jp | February 9, 2008 2:07 PM

It's to the extent that Hillary and Obama have "stuck to their guns", at least in terms of articulating a commitment to deliberate and responsible re-deployment and re-tasking of our forces in Iraq rather than a pell-mell rush for the mirage of an exit, that I expect to vote for one of them.

If they stray too far into the "I'll get out, and we'll never fight another war anywhere for any reason while I'm President" sector where they are now flirting with the lefties, it's McCain.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 10, 2008 4:36 AM