The Security Message

Democracy Corps says the following message sells well:

We cannot afford more of the reckless, extreme national security policies of the Bush years that lost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. But John McCain was Bush's biggest supporter on Iraq and says he is willing to keep our troops there for 100 years. I would strengthen America's security by bringing home our troops from Iraq during 2009, doing what we need to win in Afghanistan, rebuilding our alliances, and pursuing a new alternative energy policy, including alternative sources, to reduce our dependence on oil from dangerous regimes.

Reckless, extreme, I like it. They also say that a "priorities message" focused on the idea that we're wasting money and so forth in Iraq and need to take care of problems at home does pretty well, but that the security message has much more resonance especially among independents. I like it. An awful lot of John McCain's national security "cred" is pure bluff, people understand that an honorable military record plus lunatic ideas about foreign policy doesn't equal security for America.

Comments

1) The Democratic consultant class hurts the party badly with their idiotic ideas. One of which is that you should not criticize the Republicans.

2) I agree that you don't want to yell "Republicans are shit-eating scum!" if you want to attract cross-over or independent voters.

But you can certainly argue that the Republican LEADERSHIP have been shit-eating scum. If you are not willing to point out how they have screwed this country badly, then you are not giving the voters any reason to vote for you instead.

3) Yet the biggest crimes of the Republicans get covered up and not discussed. In some cases, because some Democrats were also involved. I think in such cases the rule from the Party should be that if you fuck the Democratic constituents by whoring for rich men, then you shouldn't expect the Party to cover your ass.

4) Why is NO ONE, for example, pointing out that the huge government bailout of the investment banks is coming out of our tax dollars -- and is DIRECTLY DUE to the Republicans' past pushing for no regulation of business.

Posted by Don Williams | April 4, 2008 11:07 AM

Substance-wise, I agree with everything except the "reduce our dependence on oil from dangerous regimes" part. But, if it works politically, then fine.

The main thing I like is the use of harsh language: "reckless", "extreme", "lost us trillions...". Whatever we do, we need to stop using wimpy, wishy washy phrases.

Posted by Jim W | April 4, 2008 11:07 AM

Re "we need to stop using wimpy, wishy washy phrases"
----------
I agree. That's what was so INFURIATING about John Kerry's campaign in 2004. He couldn't tell you the time of day without 20 caveats and qualifiers.

How that stupid , inarticulate dumbshit ever became Senator --much less candidate for President -- is beyond me.

Posted by Don Williams | April 4, 2008 11:14 AM

...people understand that an honorable military record plus lunatic ideas about foreign policy doesn't equal security for America.

No, Matt - people don't understand that at all.

See, when I think of "people," I think of my mother. (Please, no "throwing under the bus" comments.) She's earnest and intelligent, but doesn't care much about reading things on her own, or learning them independently. She trusts what she is told.

And she is told that John McCain is a war hero who will kill all the bad guys and keep her safe from Middle Eastern Islamic evil people. She thinks we should kill every last terrorist on the planet, failing to understand the circular nature of the fight, or the motivations of the people who are blindly labeled "terrorists," no matter what their cause or belief system.

So, when McCain promises a lot of war against Middle Eastern Islamic people, she nods with that "American toughness" we have come to identify with neoconservatism.

A lot of people are like my mother.

Posted by Trigger | April 4, 2008 11:14 AM

Sounds like it's drawn from that document (Realistic Plan to End the War in Iraq?) that 40-odd Dem challengers have signed.

Getting the party behind specific strategies would be an excellent idea. I don't see "We'd do something different, we think" as providing the level of confidence that's needed. Vague "We're not Bush!" sells well until people notice McCain isn't Bush, either.

Of course, painting the Bush-McCain similarities is important to that argument. Still, I worry that people want to go overboard at joining them at the hip, so that the real disastrous policy alignments get lost in the noise.

Posted by Deborah | April 4, 2008 11:15 AM

How's this for a campaign ad: (all of it is big text on a black screen)

screen 1:

George Bush's tab:

- 4000 US troops dead
- 40000 US troops injured
- 3 Trillion dollars

screen 2:

Now John McCain wants to step to to the bar

...and he's THIRSTY

It's time to cut Bush and McCain off

screen 3:

BO/HC for President

Posted by ramster | April 4, 2008 11:19 AM

doing what we need to win in Afghanistan

It may sound good but what does this mean? I worry about Dems repeating the Republican mistake of pinning their political fortunes on an unwinnable war. At the very least, at some point you need to define what "win in Afghanistan" means.

Posted by Ryan | April 4, 2008 11:32 AM

I would strengthen America's security by bringing home our troops from Iraq during 2009, [ . . . ] rebuilding our alliances,

Problem is, most of our European allies actually agree with Colin Powell: We broke it, we bought it. The chattering classes there started dumping in their drawers after the '06 midterms when Dems took over the Congress and began calling for fast withdrawal timetables.

What are the Euros worried about? Potential catastrophic civil war erupting in Iraq with the involvement of Syria, Iran, and Turkey, as well as the standard Islamofascist NGOs of AQI, et al. They're concerned about an unstable nation whose chaos could destabilize Saudi Arabia and disrupt the strategic Persian Gulf shipping lanes. They're worried about a terrorist proving ground where new tactics can be tried and tested -- and then brought back to Europe to the local disaffected Islamic minority communities.

Withdrawing from Iraq would most certainly undermine the very alliances the Dems claim they want to revitalize. And no matter what Hill and Barry say from now until November, the concerns of our alliance partners are the reason that none of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq any time soon -- no matter how eager they are to hoodwink their constituents all the way to the White House.

Mark my words. ;-)

Posted by MarkG | April 4, 2008 11:39 AM

ramster,

Replace screen 2 with:

Now John McCain wants to step up to the bar-

(show video clip of McCain's 100 years)

Screen 3:

Can we really afford more of the same?

I'd suggest this as a 527 ad, not a candidate ad.

Posted by drjimcooper | April 4, 2008 11:44 AM

MarkG: "Problem is, most of our European allies actually agree with Colin Powell: We broke it, we bought it."

Do you have any evidence for this, or for your claims about what worries Euros?

Posted by Kevin Donoghue | April 4, 2008 11:58 AM

MarkG, for people like you, all withdrawal timetables are "fast" withdrawal timetables. At issue is that the political establishment is massively in favor of withdrawal, they just need an excuse to do it. Bush was able to resist the ISG recommendations, but Clinton and Obama will be in no position to do so when a "bipartisan" committee comes up with a withdrawal plan.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 11:59 AM

Re MarkG's comment "What are the Euros worried about? Potential catastrophic civil war erupting in Iraq with the involvement of Syria, Iran, and Turkey, as well as the standard Islamofascist NGOs of AQI, et al. They're concerned about an unstable nation whose chaos could destabilize Saudi Arabia and disrupt the strategic Persian Gulf shipping lanes. They're worried about a terrorist proving ground where new tactics can be tried and tested -- and then brought back to Europe to the local disaffected Islamic minority communities."
-------------
If they're so worried, then let the fucking Europeans manage Iraq.

When national leaders are concerned about something, they DO SOMETHING. Deploy resources -- spies, military units, money,diplomats, etc.

WHen I look for any EVIDENCE of European concern, I see jack shit.

You wouldn't be trying to con us, would you Mark?

Posted by Don Williams | April 4, 2008 12:28 PM

I've heard many dumbshit reasons for wasting lives and tax money in Iraq, but I admit that sucking up to the Eurowienie "surrender monkeys" have not been one of them.

Hmmm. What to get for lunch? I think I'll go get
a burger and some "Freedom Fries".

Posted by Don Williams | April 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Don Williams writes: "But you can certainly argue that the Republican LEADERSHIP have been shit-eating scum."

That's offensive.

The Republican leaders have been ignorant, corrupt, Constitution-defiling shit-eating scum. Their remaining supporters eat the shit of said scum.

There, all better now.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 4, 2008 12:40 PM

1) The "100 year" line they use is dishonest. Everyone knows that it means "100 years" in the same sense that we have been in Europe since 1945

2) Has Democracy Corps looked the reality of how the warlords allied with us in Afghanistan would react to a US retreat from Iraq? Here's a tip: they would perceive it as the first stage of a withdrawal from the entire region, and act accordingly

You may not like (2), but it's how power projection actually works.

Posted by James Robertson | April 4, 2008 1:37 PM

The biggest question that those talking points raise but leave unanswered is why it is important to "win in Afghanistan" but not Iraq. Perhaps Matt will fill us in.

Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 1:57 PM

Why is it important to withdraw from Iraq and not Afghanistan? Is our presence in Afghanistan any more legitimate than our presence in Iraq? I think not. Doesn't matter how many times you kill the number 3 guy, there's always another one unless you stop contributing to the conditions that create the next one. Edwards was right about this, even though no one wants to hear it. The "war on terror" is largely BS.

Posted by ally's gift | April 4, 2008 2:55 PM

"bringing home our troops from Iraq during 2009"

It should read, "start bringing home our troops from Iraq during 2009". It is impossible to bring all of our equipment and men home in one year.

Posted by Mark Gaughan | April 4, 2008 3:08 PM

My last comment should have read troops not men. Sorry ladies.

Posted by Mark Gaughan | April 4, 2008 3:11 PM

The biggest question that those talking points raise but leave unanswered is why it is important to "win in Afghanistan" but not Iraq.

This is a good question. Let's assume in both cases, by "win" we mean: leave behind a relatively stable country in which radical terrorists are not thriving. I wouldn't say its necessarily more important to win in Afghanistan, but that it is easier to do so. In Iraq, the legacy of Bush's illegitimate invasion, his sundry war crimes, and general incompetence is a situation in which our presence is counterproductive in the long term.

No doubt Bush has been equally incompetent in Afghanistan, but then again, it was an easier situation to handle and so the legacy of his incompetence is not so bad. Plus, in this country, we have a greater claim to legitimacy and more help from our allies. Also, to abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban would be a setback on a symbolic level, due their support for al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Posted by Jim W | April 4, 2008 3:16 PM

Jim W,

I appreciate your taking a stab at an answer, but in terms of feasibility of winning (using your definition), the opposite case would seem to be true. Afghanistan is a fourth world failed state where there is a huge incentive for many Afghans to resist stabilization: it would involve a clampdown on their most lucrative industry, opiates. In addition to that, the Taliban can never be eliminated as long as they can move back and forth across Afghanistan's porous border to their sanctuary in Pakistan.

On the other hand, in Iraq, all of the major sectarian groups have a stake in eventual stabilization because that would lead to a huge boost for Iraq's most lucrative industry, oil. And there has already been significant progress toward that stability, with the Kurds having largely stabilized their part of Iraq and the Sunnis moving well in that direction. A power struggle remains to be sorted out among the rival Shiite parties but the prospect of stability leading to increased oil exploration and production leading to a massive windfall remains a huge incentive for Iraqis to sort their remaining differences out.

Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 3:41 PM

Fred,

You seem to be stating why Afghanistan needs our intervention but Iraq doesn't.

In both cases, but particularly in Afghanistan, I'm against trying to force a solution involving a strong central government. In my mind, our presence in Afghanistan is primarily for keeping the Taliban and al Qaeda down. If they were to come back to power, it would look bad for us.

Posted by Jim W | April 4, 2008 3:58 PM

"doing what we need to win in Afghanistan"

This is where it all goes to shit - because the US and NATO CANNOT "win in Afghanistan" any more than they can win in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan or any other such place they intend to start a war in.

And Obama does not know this. Clinton and McCain don't care one way or the other, as long as it leads to war for Israel and the military-industrial complex.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 5, 2008 5:46 AM