Excerpted from Thoughts from Kansas.
Bora links approvingly to the Frameshop's framing of Iraq:
the choices on Iraq all boil down to one simple question:
Is the United States better or worse with American troops in Iraq?
No, that isn't the question. This accepts a key part of the Republican frame, that by being in Iraq we are advancing (or could be advancing) American interests.
I put it differently a few weeks ago, and I stand by this statement:
I do think that at some point, we will withdraw. This seems obvious to me, but a lot of people treat that idea as surrender talk. Unless we plan to leave 150,000 troops in Iraq forever, we will eventually withdraw. This is simple truth.
When you accept that premise, the question ceases to be: "Should we withdraw?", and becomes "How shall we withdraw?"
Last night I went (press credentials in hand!) to see George Lakoff speak with the
Heartland Democrats of America. A lot was said, and more will follow, but I want to talk about Iraq. The discussion of pre-war lies is about trust, not about what to do in Iraq now, and progressives should keep the distinction clear.
At this point, we're in Iraq. Whether we should have gone or not, we're there now. If, like Feldman above, we frame withdrawal in terms of "What can Iraq do for us?" there's no impetus to bring our boys and girls home.
Almost no one sees the military with a nurturant parent frame, which explains the aversion to peacekeeping and other "soft force." One good thing about a strong father is that a strong father raises strong children who can take care of themselves and be strong fathers independently.
If we frame Iraq in Feldman's terms, we treat Iraq as the child to our strong father, and we need to stay to provide discipline to Iraq's unruly children.
My approach (written with broad knowledge of Lakoff's ideas but without actually reading anything he wrote) treats Iraq as a child that has grown up and is ready to be independent. It's adult enough to discipline its own children.