Bad Frame

WaPo/ABC takes a poll:

Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer - a timetable or no timetable?

Opinion on that question comes out 50-49 which goes to show mostly that it'll be deadly for progressives to let that kind of framing stand. The implication here is that McCain is hewing to some kind of agnostic middle ground about troop departures, letting the schedule be dictated by events. In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible. Given that such a presence is broadly unpopular in Iraq, and also a specific source of inter-factional tension and also a large incentive for Iran to play a destructive rather than constructive role in Iraq, it's a strategic objective that makes stability and substantial troop withdrawals essentially impossible for the foreseeable future.

The idea of a 16 month timetable sounds a bit arbitrary because it is a bit arbitrary -- why not 15 months or 17 months? But a certain level of arbitrariness is inherent in the idea of setting a fixed schedule. And a fixed schedule for withdrawal is the only context in which it's possible for US forces to accomplish something constructive during the remaining time, will let us reallocate resources away from this wasteful war, and with some luck will actually reduce the level of internal tensions in Iraq. There's no choice between setting a timetable and taking a "wait and see" attitude, there's a choice between putting down a marker (in the real world, more likely negotiated with the Iraqi government than inside a presidential campaign staff) of where the exits lie, and a costly and pointless open-ended engagement.

Comments

McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn.

That's like saying that George Bush has opposed a specific timetable for reimposing the taxes he eliminated, and has said that events should dictate when these taxes are reinstated.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 15, 2008 8:17 AM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq

This, of course, is a flat out lie.

Posted by Al | July 15, 2008 8:25 AM

It's particualrly obnoxious because Obama has said that the 16 months is not an iron-clad time table, but an estimate of how long it would take for an orderly withdrawal, and that he's not committed to 16 months if events dictate otherwise. Heck, there are people on the left who are mad at Obama about that. The postion attributed to McCain in this push-poll is actually closer to Obama's, while as we all know, McCain sees to reason to withdraw from Iraq ever.

Posted by rea | July 15, 2008 8:26 AM

You missed the money take from Gen. Petraeus's boy at Brookings.

"Republicans were not alone in that response. Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."

O'Hanlon is to Gen. Petraeus what Short Round is to Indiana Jones.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 15, 2008 8:38 AM

The correct framing would be: Obama supports removing our troops from Iraq in an orderly process; McCain supports keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely. Which do you support?

Posted by Allan | July 15, 2008 8:51 AM

Considering the Iraqi people and government have wanted us out of their country for a while now, it'd be nice if we, at least, pretended to give a damn about their sovreignity and started withdrawing forces.

And I'd say 58 Military Bases sounds like a permanent presence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080609/wl_mcclatchy/2962054

Posted by Chris | July 15, 2008 8:58 AM

Here's some context from the same WaPo/ABC poll.

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

Worth It - 36%
Not Worth It - 63%

"Do you think the United States must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, or do you think the war on terrorism can be a success without the United States winning the war in Iraq?"

Must Win War in Iraq - 34%
Does Not Require Iraq Victory - 60%

Despite all the Chicken Little bleatings of Michael O'Hanlon the American people have figured out by an overwhelming margin that there is nothing really "to win" in Iraq.

Look at the Iraq numbers from Polling Report.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

It's clear that this new "50/50" polling construct is just so much bullshit. Despite P.T. Barnum's admonitions I don't think voters will allow their worries to be "framed" out of a 5 year long quagmire. A large majority of voters want out of Iraq -- full stop.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 15, 2008 9:01 AM

This, of course, is a flat out lie.

Regardless of the merits of the argument at hand, I always love it when Republicans get into an indignant outrage about dishonesty.

Oh, the hypocrisy! It's schadenfruedelicious!

Posted by DMonteith | July 15, 2008 9:05 AM

WaPo, 6/11/08: Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said this morning that when U.S. forces come home from Iraq is "not too important," so long as U.S. casualties in the Middle East fall to levels comparable to those in Germany, Japan and South Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for decades.

John McCain doesn't support withdrawing the troops from Iraq if events are peaceful in Iraq. He wants a strategic presence in the region IN IRAQ and is willing to wait an indefinite period of time in order to meet whatever conditions are required (he won't tell us) in order to stay for 100 years. The American people want OUT because staying in Iraq isn't free and people associate our presence in Iraq with $4 per gallon gas.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 15, 2008 9:24 AM

It seems odd for people who for four years kept saying "in the next six months, we'll know...." to criticize a 16-month timetable.

Posted by clb72 | July 15, 2008 9:46 AM

Do you think the United States must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, or do you think the war on terrorism can be a success without the United States winning the war in Iraq?"

Must Win War in Iraq - 34%
Does Not Require Iraq Victory - 60%

That's probably worse than the one that Yglesias cites. The war in Iraq is already won, if you listen to a few figures on the right who cite all the awesome things about it: Saddam is gone, after all! The other cassus belli was to snatch up all those WMDs, and you can't really "win" that part of the war since they were never there in the first place.

Or do they mean the vague, undefinable sort of "victory" that John McCain and George Bush want to chase after like the silly ol' donkey chases after the carrot?

When terms like "win the war" are used, inherently the alternative is to "surrender" or "lose".

It's not the sort of push-poll that got South Carolinians worried about John McCain's supposedly illegitimate daughter - it's a little more subtle. But it is pushing the "win or lose" meme.

Posted by socctty | July 15, 2008 10:17 AM

As a life long Democrat and Union member I look
at my party today with extream disgust.They have the gaul to think they have the next JFK, B..S..t!! Not even close...Why not pull out,infact
hell yes! we have left the job half done many times since WW-2.Bet you he won't make half of his ideas work.Like Jimmy "C" He is a sure bet to be a 1 timer..Look at pelosi and company 2 years
and they have done what??Nada,Zip,Zero,Old botax face said they could hold the line on gas
price's back when they took control,yeah,sure gas
was 2.05 when she took control now it's 4.11 but
correct me if I'm wrong but they didn't do squat.
I say fire the whole friggen bunch, democrats and
republican's and start over.

Posted by Gator | July 15, 2008 11:09 AM

[John McCain] wants a strategic presence in the region IN IRAQ

As does Barack Obama: "After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."

Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to leave a residual force of American troops in Iraq. The only question is the timing of bringing home the bulk of the troops. Barack Obama wants to surrender to al Qaeda and rush the troops home as quickly as practicable. John McCain wants to complete the mission and then bring the troops home. The difference is fairly simple.

Posted by Al | July 15, 2008 11:42 AM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....?

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Opinion on that question comes out 50-49 which goes to show mostly that it'll be deadly for progressives to let that kind of framing stand 50-49 is deadly?!? Really?!? That sounds pretty good to me. You frame the question in the most positive GOP narrative and they still can break 50%.
Instead of ceding any ground to these idiots we have to stand up to them and make sure we end this war.

Posted by D. | July 15, 2008 1:02 PM

Why 16 months? Because 3 months is impossible and 100 years is way too long. In fact, John McCain, why 100 years? Why not 98 years or 104?

Posted by Aatos | July 15, 2008 1:09 PM

Barack Obama wants to surrender to al Qaeda and rush the troops home as quickly as practicable.

I know the right wing thinks "surrender" is a great talking point, but which is a bigger lie-- the claim that McCain wants to stay in Iraq forever, which Al calls a lie even though McCain actually said as much, or the claim that Obama wants to surrender, which involves US forces aggreeing to be taken into captivity by Al Qaeda?

If you want to push back against alleged lies from the left, Al, you might want to take the log out of your own eye first. Not that the right wing in this country actually cares about the teachings of Jesus, of course.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 15, 2008 1:25 PM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....?

Please don't descend to silly polemics.

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 2:29 PM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....? That statement of McCain's didn't mean anything outside staying until a military victory. And Obama is flipping & flopping as much as Kerry.

Please don't descend to silly polemics.

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 2:31 PM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....? That statement of McCain's didn't mean anything outside staying until a military victory. And Obama is flipping & flopping as much as Kerry.

Please don't descend to silly polemics.

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 2:31 PM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....? That statement of McCain's didn't mean anything outside staying until a military victory. And Obama is flipping & flopping as much as Kerry.

Please don't descend to silly polemics.

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 2:31 PM

In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible.

And your evidence for this statement is....? That statement of McCain's didn't mean anything outside staying until a military victory. And Obama is flipping & flopping as much as Kerry.

Please don't descend to silly polemics.

Are you talking about bowling?

Posted by daveinboca | July 15, 2008 2:32 PM

or the claim that Obama wants to surrender, which involves US forces aggreeing to be taken into captivity by Al Qaeda?

Since when does a surrender necessarily involve US forces agreeing to be taken into captivity? Seems to me that "to surrender" means "to give up". We did it in Vietnam (without US forces agreeing to be taken into captivity). And Obama wants to do it in Iraq - just as we're on the verge of winning.

Posted by Al | July 15, 2008 2:49 PM

You're a joke, Al.

Even Ford argues more coherently than you do.

Once again, for the morons who don't get it, McCain has said he will remove troops when they aren't being killed. Since that will never happen in Iraq for at least the next one or two generations of Iraqis, as a result of what the US has done there, by definition US troops will remain in Iraq for generations.

However, as I've said, this is all moot, because the Iraqis clearly will force the US out within the next two years once the nationalists seize power in the next provincial and parliamentary elections, if Obama doesn't remove them first. And if Bush attacks Iran this year, the Iraqis will force the US out within three months.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 15, 2008 5:11 PM

Since when does a surrender necessarily involve US forces agreeing to be taken into captivity? Seems to me that "to surrender" means "to give up".

No, it doesn't. Here's Webster's:

"1 a: to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand b: to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another"

In other words, "surrender" has a specific military meaning. You allow an opposing army to take the territory, you give up your weapons, you agree to terms of a ceasefire or peace treaty, you agree to be taken prisoner. Simply leaving is not surrendering.

It is true that Vietnam War supporters used the term "surrender" AS A METAPHOR, in the same sense you are now, to attack people who opposed the continuation of US involvement in the Vietnam War.

The funny thing is, this rhetoric was conceived as a political attack 35 years ago and now you don't even realize it was just a political attack. You don't know what the word means anymore.

Simple way to remember-- Appommatox Courthouse = surrender. US troop evacuation in Vietnam = troop pullout.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 15, 2008 6:01 PM

By the way, to make a broader point-- labels like "surrender" are not arguments. A good way to tell if you are actually persuading anyone is to try to make the same argument in totally neutral language. A persuasive argument will still sound persuasive without using any of the terms that poll well on Frank Luntz's lists. If your argument depends on the use of the name-calling and labeling to sound plausible, then it isn't really an argument.

My challenge to the Als of the world. Stop using loaded terms like "surrender" and make an argument against Obama's troop pullout plan or in favor of McCain's plan in plain, unloaded language. I am not in any way claiming it can't be done-- rather, I am claiming that use of terms like "surrender" encourages a sort of intellectual laziness where you don't actually think through what you are saying.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 15, 2008 6:07 PM

joejoejoe,

Look at the Iraq numbers from Polling Report.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
It's clear that this new "50/50" polling construct is just so much bullshit.

Nice try, but you conveniently neglect to mention the polling data that suggests public opinion is shifting away from Obama's position and towards McCain's.

For example:

"Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq?"

Percentage answering "is":
June 07: 32%
July 08: 46%

"How well is the U.S. military effort in Iraq going . . . ?"

Very Well/Fairly Well:
December 06: 32%
June 08: 44%

"Regardless of what you think about the original decision to use military force in Iraq, do you now believe that the United States will definitely succeed, probably succeed, probably fail, or definitely fail in achieving its goals in Iraq?"

Definitely/Probably Succeed:
July 07: 43%
June 08: 50%

"All told, do you think the United States is winning or losing the war in Iraq?"

Winning:
Jan 07: 29%
June 08: 38%

This shift is clearly problematic for Obama. If he sticks to his fixed 16-month schedule for withdrawal in the face of rising public support for a slower and more flexible policy, it's likely to hurt him badly politically. So he's being coy and evasive, which just adds to the doubts that he has a meaningful position at all. As one letter writer put it in today's New York Times:

senator [Obama] now seeks to temper the rigidity of his position with assurances that he “would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government.” But he does not address the crucial question of whether such consultations might result in an extension of the 16-month withdrawal period. An affirmative answer would drive many of his supporters into a frenzy, but the absence of one deprives his assurances of any meaning.

Posted by Mixner | July 15, 2008 6:39 PM

Dilan-

Very nice reasoning, I salute you sir.

But you must be new here, trying to reason with a troll. Either that or, like me sometimes, you just can’t help yourself.

I actually think it’s quite funny that Al tried to besmirch Obama’s plans as “surrender” in the SAME post that he quotes Obama saying… “After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia…”

That’s some good stuff.

Posted by Nuada | July 16, 2008 3:08 AM