A Responsible Exit

Wednesday, March 19th marked the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Anti-war progressives and activists can use this moment to put forward a responsible exit strategy. Unfortunately, our side does not seem to be saying much more than 'bring the troops home.' We need ways of talking about what happens beyond, and alongside of, troop withdrawals. We can and should provide leadership in terms of shaping a responsible exit that helps the Iraqi people while repairing the damage this war has done to our nation’s status as a world leader.

The President gave an anemic defense of his Iraq policies on Wednesday. It would be a mistake, however, to think that Bush’s ineffectiveness at framing his arguments for staying in Iraq means we have the upper hand. Others in the pro-war camp are very good at framing a narrative about the war, and especially about the surge, in terms that resonate with the American people. And they will have ample opportunity to make their case in the coming months, leading up to the election.

The surge has produced a couple of notable results, namely, a modest decrease in violence in Iraq and a weakening of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Pro-war forces are taking advantage of these results to make the case for staying on the current course and halting any plans for drawing down the troops.

The best example of framing I’ve seen during this spate of 5th anniversary coverage comes from Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal:
"The tipping point came with 'the surge.' The new policy was marked by stoicism and an acceptance of the burdens of this war. For once, there was no promise of easy success.... The public is willing to grant this expedition time, and that's for the good… Americans know that the lands and sea lanes of the Persian Gulf are too vital to be left to mayhem and petty tyrants."

Framing is a way of telling a story about an event or issue, one that explains what the problem is, who is responsible and what the solutions are. A good frame uses resonant themes and values, giving the audience a sense of why they should care about the problem and how they can be part of solving it. Without compromising our core beliefs and principles, we can find ways of telling a story about current events and issues in Iraq that resonate with ordinary people. We can do this by tapping into their experiences and hopes, and by expanding their sense of possibility, which, ultimately, is more effective than shouting slogans.

Charles Knight, Co-Director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, offers a critique as well as elements of a progressive/left narrative for a responsible exit strategy.

According to Knight, anti-war activists tend to critique the surge with a narrative that goes something like this:
"Apparent gains from the ‘surge’ are temporary, there has been no real political progress within Iraq, and things will soon be much worse (or it will never get much better) – we must get out eventually and sooner is better than later when the place may well crash around our head (and/or we never had any right to be there in the first place.)"

Knight calls this a ‘dismal’ narrative. Truthful though it may be, this way of framing the surge sounds notes of pessimism and defeatism: ‘We should abandon the job in Iraq because it is hopeless and wrong’.

In contrast, people like Ajami speak of slow, steady progress, of learning from past mistakes and forging ahead. Things are slowly getting better for Iraqis. It involves sacrifice now, but, as things get better, our costs will slowly be reduced. It would be wrong and cowardly to stop now.

Knight asks, which frame resonates more? “The optimism that the job can be done, even when the job is hard? Or, The pessimism that the job should be abandoned because it is hopeless and wrong?”

A better way of framing the surge and the need for an exit strategy is to redefine our nation’s goals (or, as Knight says, redefine the job description) and reaffirm that, together, we can do right by the Iraqi people. The main goal at this point should be to withdraw from Iraq in a timely and responsible manner. Toward achieving this goal, we must:
* Set a date certain for complete withdrawal which will change the politics inside Iraq;
* Prepare for the change in Iraqi politics and influence it toward national reconciliation;
* Invest heavily in activities that mitigate and ameliorate as much as possible negative outcomes;
* Engage in a ‘new diplomacy’ in the Middle East that seeks accord with all of Iraq’s neighbors in support of a stable and prosperous Iraq;
* Make this regional accord the highest of priorities for US policy;
* Prepare and encourage the ‘international community’ to take up a limited and critical set of security roles in Iraq when the US leaves.

A progressive narrative for a responsible exit strategy must acknowledge the costs and the sacrifices involved in achieving our goals. Knight estimates that, for at least five years it will cost us $15 – 30 billion a year. He also points out that this is a bargain compared with the $150 - 300 billion a year we have been spending to keep the troops there. Others will be called upon to put themselves in harm’s way and to make financial contributions, such as the staffs of NGOs and international agencies. The exit strategy also calls upon Arab states and other wealthy nations to share the costs in terms of risks, finances and other kinds of sacrifices.

This narrative taps a larger set of themes that can resonate: “we can be responsible, morally whole, and not alone.” Knight embeds these themes into his proposed narrative with language like this: “We will bring our troops home and remain connected, indeed play a leadership role in, a community of responsible care for the future of Iraq.” With such a narrative, he argues, we have a better chance of gaining the support of the 20 percent of the American public who are not sure what we should do about Iraq. Beyond this, a national public discourse on Iraq that is informed by this kind of narrative gives us a chance to get beyond the quagmire that is Iraq.