A Contemptible Lie- UPDATED Posted by Michael Cohen

Today in the New York Times, David Brooks argues the new conservative narrative that Americans are no longer concerned about the Iraq War. In doing so, he makes this rather amazing assertion:

Republicans don’t want to talk about Iraq because they’re humiliated by the conduct of the war, and Democrats don’t want to talk about it because they were wrong about the surge.

This is a contemptible lie. Democrats were not, and are not, wrong about the surge. As has been stated ad nauseum here at Democracy Arsenal and elsewhere, the surge was predicated on giving Iraqis breathing room for political reconciliation. This has not happened. To argue that the surge is a success is the new GOP line on Iraq, but it's a bald-faced lie and should be exposed as such.

As for the notion that the American people aren't interested in Iraq, here's what Brooks has to say:

Before the 2004 election, half of all voters listed terrorism as their top concern. But, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, roughly a third do today.

Like any good Bushie, Brooks is trying to conflate the "war on terror" with the war in Iraq, but, as most Americans now understand, these are two separate issues. Indeed it should hardly seem surprising that most Americans would no longer list terrorism as their main concern - they are more worried about Iraq. But David, you get an A for effort.

While the numbers have declined somewhat, every major recent poll continues to indicate that Iraq remains the number one concern of voters. And in the most recent CBS News poll the American people believe by a 45-30 margin that Democrats will do a better job on Iraq.

I'm sure David Brooks would love for this election to be a "post-war election" as he puts it, but as long as upwards of 150,000 troops remain in Iraq it seems very difficult to imagine a scenario where the war is not front and center for Election '08. Moreover, with all the major Republican candidates refusing to break with the President on Iraq there seems even more reason for Dems to make Iraq a key campaign focus. But again David, you get an A for effort.

UPDATE: And in further evidence of exactly how wrong David Brooks post-war argument is, check out the latest Gallup poll on Iraq:

When asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote for president in next year's election, Americans by a wide margin say the war in Iraq, with more than one in three mentioning the war.

While Gallup makes the point that the number of people citing Iraq as their number one concern has dropped from 42% to 36% Iraq is still far and away the most important concern: more than double that of the nearest issues; the economy (16%), healthcare (15%), and illegal immigration (10%).

 

Comments

[Zathras]

Well, this is progress from passionate argument about the use of force resolution Congress passed over five years ago. But not much.

While I'm not a great admirer of David Brooks' political commentary, his general point here of the declining (at the moment) salience of Iraq as a campaign issue is not wrong. His evaluation of what effect this is having on Presidential candidacies, particularly on the Republican side, is not wrong. And he is not wrong either to assume that from the public's perspective, the surge has worked in the only way the public cares about -- it has led to, or at least preceeded, a marked decrease in American casualties in Iraq, and secondarily in the overall level of violence there.

Has political reconciliation happened in Iraq? No. Is it likely to? No, not in any way Americans would recognize. And whose fault is that? I'm guessing the average voter in New Hampshire or South Carolina would say it's the Iraqis' fault. Experts on the countries of the Middle East would howl in protest, but experts on the Middle East are not going to nominate candidates for the American Presidency next year.

If you want to get the American public behind the idea of liquidating the military commitment in Iraq, you will need to set before them the case that Iraqi problems are not worth losing American lives and spending American money to solve. To put matters very crudely, there is no way to do this without trashing the Iraqis -- or at the very least pointing out that their country isn't important enough to be worth the effort we are making there.

I'm aware some Democrats denounced the surge a year ago, and said it wouldn't fix Iraq. So did I. Who was right? Doesn't matter. The surge is last year's issue. This year's issue is whether the United States will neglect pressing needs at home and elsewhere in the world in perpetuity just to keep a bunch of Arabs from killing each other. President Bush says we will. The Republican Presidential candidates say we will. The Democratic Presidential candidates had better say something more persuasive than that they were, too, right about the surge.

[Don Bacon]

Let's put on our thinking caps, as my first grade teacher used to say, and come up with some ideas of how the Dems can "make Iraq a key campaign focus".

1. As you indicate, concede that while the military surge has dampened conflict, which is perhaps temporary, it has not been matched with political progress and therefore the US needs a new strategy--one of withdrawal. As President Bush said eleven months ago: "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."

2. Follow the United Kingdom example. As the UK withdrew to a remote base in southern Iraq, violence subsided. Most of the offensive activity in Iraq is against the occupying force because the majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country.

3. Pull the Baker-Hamilton Report out of its dusty drawer and implement its recommendations: "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own".

Of course the Dems will do none of these things because they see an ongoing unpopular war as a great campaign boost.

[Kris]

It's interesting to note that in the Gallup poll, while the Iraq war is still the most important issue by a wide margin, it's percentage margin is trnding downward. I wonder if this is because of a perception in some Americans' minds that the surge has worked, and that we've finally turned that magical corner in Iraq? It will be interesting to see if that number continues to trend downward after the battallions start coming home without replacements. Of course, if Don's assertion upthread that the majority of violence perpetrated in Iraq is against the foreign invaders (which I doubt at this point, since it appears that we have an all-out civil war on our hands), then the end of the surge should mean that violence levels should continue to decrease, if indeed they are currently decreasing.

[Mike M.]

You were nice to engage me on this once, Michael and I don't expect it again. But this is kind of why I think we can't be all convoluted in saying that the surge has been a failure. We have to present it for what it was -- a costly (in lives and money) increase in troop levels in defiance of the will of the American people that has done nothing but further our quagmire and prolong the exit from Iraq that the American people demand.

When you say it the way you do, that the surge didn't accomplish goals that sound really complicated, it doesn't resonate. We have to focus on the big stuff. The government defied the people. Soldiers died as a result. Taxpayers lost money as a result. The lack of a political solution that you allude to only means that we'll be in Iraq even longer, even though a majority of Americans thought we should start withdrawing a year ago.

Focus on the cost to Americans in lives and dollars. Hammer that point home. Saying "The violence is down but the political solution isn't there," just isn't a strong enough critique.

[Dan Kervick]

Let me second and add to some of the points already made by Don Bacon and Mike M.

1. The central Iraq debate is and should be a debate about the war, not a debate about the surge. The surge is only one very recent episode in the war. If we follow the war party in allowing the war debate to evolve into a narrow tunnel-visioned debate about the surge, we will lose. Or even if we win on points, it won't be very decisively. Whether you think the surge is righting the ship, or you think the ship is still sinking, the fundamental point is that this is a disastrous voyage we should never have undertaken. Righting the ship now won't redeem the massive losses that have already been incurred.

2. The financial costs of this war have been staggering, and there are no offsetting benefits. If our economy dips into recession, I wouldn't want to be one of the politicians who supported this absurd and obscene outlay, and I also wouldn't want to be one of the politicians nattering about the Anbar Awakening, continued "training" missions and other recent on-the-ground developments and side issues while these huge losses are staring us in the face, and Americans are ready to tar and feather those most responsible for flushing a mountain of revenue and borrowed cash down the toilet. Think of what could have been done with the fortunes that have been expended!

3. Is there any chance that at some point we can get national political leaders and Washington politicos to talk about the human costs of Iraq - above all to the Iraqis? People like Beinart and Brooks probably think that Americans are just such piggishly selfish people that they do not care about this issue. But I’m convinced that most Americans don't even know about the issue. This is a topic that is followed – in the US at least - only by a few close observers, news junkies and bloggers, and they have had a devil of a time getting the heavily compromised national media and heavily compromised national leadership to address or even acknowledge it. The refusal to talk about this issue, and the ongoing attempt to smother the Iraq debate under the usual cynical euphemisms about "interests" and "strategy" and “turning the corner” is shameful and immoral. It is just wrong to shove all these wasted lives down the memory hole. The Iraq war isn’t just some sort of “strategic miscalculation” or even a “tragic error” It’s an atrocity.

4. How many Americans understand what is really happening in Iraq in terms of ongoing US policy? How many understand that the US has heavily dug in for a long-term occupation and military presence in the country, and continues to fortify that presence with each passing day? How many Americans would support this activity if they were fully informed about it? Not many, I would guess! Most think we're just there to win the war and then get out. So why can't we get political and opinion leaders to talk about this issue? Why are they so determined to conspire in pulling a fast one on the American public? This issue needs to be ventilated, and the public needs to be brought into the discussion.

5. Beinart and Brooks want Americans to forget the war in 2008, of course, so that everyone will also forget those writers' own miserable roles in the war. These two men are above all interested in preserving their own reputations and public viability. So here they come forward with what is actually a recommendation in the bogus form of a mere prediction and analysis. Don't let them get away with it! This is a debate that can be won if conscientious political and opinion leaders will talk about fundamental realities. But so many of our leaders continue to allow themselves to be pushed by the war's supporters and fellow travelers into narrow debates and secondary issues.

When the war’s promoters say “surge”, we should say “a trillion dollars.”

When they say “Petraeus”, we should say “a million dead.”

When they say “awakening” or “strategic redeployment” or “trainers”, we should say “five million refugees.”

[fiesta Gold]

Because of fiesta money, I meet a lot of friends. Besides, my friends usually give me some fiesta online gold. I usually buy fiesta Gold through Internet and advice from my friends. I gain a lot of fiesta online money and harvest in life.

[Tag Heuer replica watches]

we don't think it is reasonable to spend hundreds thousands dollars to buy a decorating watch. you can use those money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit.
here you just need to spend 100-200 dollars to buy a replica rolex watches.
Tudor replica watches are made by the rating 1:1 according to the original watches, and you can't distinguish the original and the fake watches when you look at the surface of the watches.

[cheap Perfect World Gold]

Therefore, I should Buy Perfect World Gold with the spare money.

[cheap mabinogi]

I hope i can get mabinogi online gold in low price.
i buy mabinogi gold for you.

[Rom Gold]

Once I played Rom Gold, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have Rom Gold. He gave me some Runes of Magic Gold.

[kamas]

The kamas of dofus is very compact flash web RPG games, flash platform should be the pinnacle of online games for it. The dofus also have dofus kamas.

[requiem online gold]

or you can not go on this game without cheap requiem lant. If you get requiem online gold, you can continue this game.

[molded rubber products]

parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[China Tent]

I was actually looking for this resource a few weeks back. Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom.This will absolutely going to help me in my projects .

[Egitim]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[Cách nhiệt]

Thanks for the post. There are several things I need to know via this discussion.

[China Inflatable]

Your idea coincides with mine.and I think it's better.