Standing Firm

 

Micah L. Sifry is a senior analyst with Public Campaign. He is the author of Spoiling For A Fight: Third-Party Politics In America, (Routledge, 2002) and the web log www.iraqwarreader.com, and recently co-edited The Iraq War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions (Touchstone, 2003)

Last night, President Bush made a forceful case for staying the course in Iraq and boldly tied that goal to his own re-election. Americans who want to finish what we started in Iraq should stick with him, he said. Unsaid, but implied, was the assertion that the only alternative to his approach was to cut and run.

So far, Bush has the upper hand in this argument. Even as he and John Kerry muddle toward an awkward role for the United Nations in Iraq, Bush is doing so while maintaining the appearance of certitude about his course. Meanwhile Kerry hasn't figured out how to define a clear alternative. Unlike his bold (but all too brief) call to honor the democratic process in Haiti, Kerry is trying to have it every which way but sideways on Iraq. Unfortunately, that sliver of Americans in the confused middle on this election are more likely to be swayed by certitude than caution. And you can't beat something with nothing.

Where Americans Stand

According to a CBS News poll conducted April 8, Americans think the United States did "the right thing in taking military action against Iraq," as opposed to "staying out" by a narrow margin of 50 to 46 percent. Why"even in the face of the latest grim news"do Americans support the U.S.presence in Iraq? I can think of three reasons.

1. They believe Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11, and thus our invasion of Iraq was justified as self-defense and as an integral part of the war on terror.

A year ago, this argument had more salience than it has now. Then, about one-half of the public mistakenly believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11; now, a March 30-April 1 CBS News poll finds that by 47 to 36 percent, most Americans do not believe that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, just over one-third in that poll said they view the war with Iraq as "a major part of the war on terrorism;" another 16 percent see it as a "minor part" of that fight. Forty-four percent see it as separate from the war on terror, according to CBS's survey. More evidence suggesting that people view the two fights separately comes from the April 8 poll, which found a majority of 56 to 38 percent approving how President Bush was handling the campaign against terrorism, while by 50 percent to 46 percent, a slim majority disapproved of his handling the situation with Iraq.

2. They believe the Bush administration-Pentagon spin that things are just getting better and better for the Iraqi people, a message that is reinforced by our generally complacent media.

Until recently, I would have given more credence to this argument. But it's striking that in the very same April 8 survey, only 39 percent of the public thinks the U.S. effort to "bring stability and order to Iraq" is going well. The majority of those polled"59 percent"think its going somewhat or very badly. And yet, that slender majority of 50 to 46 percent still says the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq.

3. They think removing Saddam from power and helping the Iraqi people toward democracy justifies the costs.

This, I suspect, is the trump card. It's telling that when Americans are asked a general question about whether the war with Iraq was "worth the loss of American life and other costs" a solid majority"57 to 34 percent"says no in the April 8 CBS poll. The public view in the March 30-April 1 survey was only slightly less harsh: 54 to 37 percent saying no. But the very next question produces a telling shift: When asked if "removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the loss of American life and other costs" a pluraiity of 47 percent say it was worth it. When Saddam Hussein’s name is mentioned, public support for military action in Iraq increases.

There's a deeper pattern at work here, in my view. Many Americans believe that the United States can be a positive force in the world. It's part of our founding mythology"manifest destiny, the city on the hill"which was updated during the Cold War to include being "the leader of the free world." These myths die hard, and arguably they have a positive side: Americans do express strong support for universal human rights in the abstract, and for humanitarian intervention to aid suffering people in the particular. Of course, it's extremely rare for American policymakers to act in a purely humanitarian manner overseas. But once invoked by our leaders to dress up their foreign interventions, the human rights justification can take on a life of its own.

Lessons From Gulf War I

Old survey data from the first Gulf War (1990-1991) illustrate this point very clearly. You may recall that it wasn't enough for President Bush the father to invoke international law regarding the inviolability of Kuwait's borders to sell the war to the American public. He also had to compare Saddam to Hitler and to whip up war fervor with false stories of Iraqi atrocities against Kuwait, like the "news" that babies were being torn from incubators and left to die. But the ironic result was that Bush was held responsible for his own failure to "finish the job" he implicitly set before the American people.

On the eve of war in January 1991, two-thirds of the public said the final objective of the war should be to force Saddam from power, not just to force Iraq out of Kuwait. No matter that the former didn't have UN Security Council sanction. By mid-February 1991, 84 percent of the public said that "in order for the U.S. to be successful, it is necessary for Saddam Hussein to be removed as President of Iraq." This high bar test for victory was soon to prove Bush's undoing. While on March 1, 1991"days after the cessation of fighting"55 percent of the public said the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait was a victory for U.S. forces, despite Saddam's remaining in power, by mid-April public opinion had swung 180 degrees, with only 36 percent viewing that as a victory and 55 percent disagreeing. (This was after the suppression of the Shiite rebellion and the massive exodus of the Kurds in the north, which captured worldwide attention, don't forget.) By July 1992, only 25 percent of Americans viewed the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait as a victory for the United States, since Saddam remained in power. (This data is drawn from John Mueller's invaluable book, Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War.) This perceived failure helps explain, in part at least, why President Bush couldn't ride his Gulf War victory to re-election in 1992.

Is there a lesson here for the current situation and the November election? Yes. Whoever has a credible plan for "finishing the job" in Iraq will win the upper hand in the war for public opinion here in America. As long as the situation on the ground deteriorates, public unhappiness will rise. But I don't see Americans accepting a call to simply withdraw"to "cut and run" as it were. Nor, I suspect, is it enough to criticize the Bushies for how badly they have blundered by acting unilaterally and failing to plan appropriately for a post-war Iraq that didn't embrace them with "kites and boomboxes," as Fouad Ajami so memorably and mistakenly predicted. (Where is Ajami these days? Haven't seen much of him or Bernard Lewis anywhere of late.)

Kerry's Shortcomings

And that, ultimately, is where John Kerry is falling short. We kind of know what he is against (though having voted to give Bush the authority to wage unilateral war he was hardly against this war when it seemed popular). But we have little idea of how he would get through this mess. He has called for bringing in more troops, as well as somehow "internationalizing" the occupation and getting the United Nations, the Europeans and some Arab countries more involved. But his notion that it is in their self-interest to prevent a "failed Iraq" doesn't quite grapple with the possibility that they would like a "failed US" even more. Kerry's op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Post is a "strategy for Iraq" only if you believe strategies can be sketched out on the back of a napkin. In essence, he says we should empower the UN representative in Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, to make a deal with the major Iraqi factions on our behalf, and the UN handle all the civilian functions of an occupying power, while the U.S. military keeps primary responsibility for security.

Interestingly, this is not far from where President Bush left matters in his press conference yesterday, when asked "who will be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?" His answer: "We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing." Of course, he's doing it while under American military guard, and in a situation where American military commanders determine who is hostile and who is friendly, and key players seeking a role in the future Iraqi government are on the US government payroll. And this at a time when the American who is really in charge of Iraq, General John Abizaid, has decided to bring back former senior Iraqi military officials to help the occupation forces! If I were an Iraqi civilian, I'd be very confused by the signals Bush and his minions are sending about how they will "stay the course" in Iraq, given what US forces are doing on the ground there.

Far better would be a clear call for early, internationally supervised elections that would allow the Iraqi people to select their own representative leadership, coupled with an admission that we have no right or reason to stand in the way of Iraqi self-determination now that the dictatorial Baathist regime is gone. The virtue of this position is a) it puts us on the side of the Iraqi people, instead of in their way; b) it's in tune with Americans' sense that we can be a force for positive change in the world; c) it's hard to see how the rest of the international community can oppose it; and d) it offers a way out of the quagmire. Oh yes, it also would put Bush on the defensive, since with every day it becomes clear that the last thing he and his neoconservative allies want is free elections in Iraq. (If you recall Josh Marshall's trenchant argument from almost a year ago, they may really want more chaos which will allow them to get even more deeply involved in deciding who Arabs and Muslims can pick as their leaders"see Ariel Sharon's assassination of Sheik Yassin of Hamas and his renewed threats to kill Yasir Arafat in this category.)

Much as I agree that the United Nations has to have a central role in any successful democratic transition in Iraq, simply saying that we are punting to Brahimi is scarcely a winning argument. I thought the buck stopped on the President’s desk. Right now, Bush has thrown down a challenge to Kerry: “I will stay the course in Iraq (unlike my opponent).” The best response is to say, “Here’s a better course to take.”

Waffling is, of course, the safest route for a politician. On this subject, however, it doesn't get Kerry to the high ground in this debate"which is to call for real democracy and self-determination for Iraqis. As long as he cedes that high ground to President Bush, he will be framed by how Bush tackles the current crisis, rather than framing Bush. Thus, expect more attempts by the administration to conflate Iraqi resistance to American occupation with "terrorism," and any criticism of how Bush is handling Iraq as being "soft on terror." Given what we already know about how ruthlessly the Bushies will act to hold onto power (Florida 2000 and the 2002 elections being my guide to that issue), that means they will do whatever they can to divert public attention, whip up post-9/11 fears and tar their opponent as weak and spineless.

As my friend Doug Ireland pointed out to me in an e-mail, the comments of a young Bush supporter are indicative: "I would like if there was a better challenger for Bush," said Justin Tucker, a 21-year-old college student from Prosser, Wash. told The Associated Press. "I just don't believe in ripping the president out of office during a war on terror"especially to replace him with Kerry. Who knows what Kerry's going to do?"

Bush, it's worth noting, beats Kerry almost 2 to 1 in being seen as saying what he believes, rather than what he thinks other people want to hear. In a time of crisis and fear, that measure of "leadership" runs to Bush's favor"as little as most of us would like to admit. Yes, we can all point out that what Bush believes is dangerous and out-of-touch with reality. But until Kerry presents an equally resolute image, those arguments will do little to sway swing voters like Justin Tucker.

You can't beat something with nothing.

Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.

Published: Apr 14 2004