[Cross-posted from Frameshop --JF].
ALERT
The White House has launched a deceptive campaign about the war in Iraq using this codeword:
caring
This word has been used to describe Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (e,g, "He's a c---g fellow") and to counter the claim that Bush Iraqi policy shows wanton disregard for American soldiers.
Do not accept the terms of this debate.
Progressives can take control of the Iraq debate by changing the language being used. All criticism of the Bush Iraq policy should reinforce these points:
The Bush White House:
- treats war like business
- neglects the troops
- sells the war to Americans with false advertising
By using these points Progressives can talk in positive terms about their view of Iraq:
Progressives believe:
- America leads by example
- Responsibility is the moral core of a strong military
- Respect is the foundation of an effective foreign policy
Leadership, Responsibility, Respect.
Frameshop is open.
Rumsfeld: War about Physics, Not People
We are all familiar with the personality of Donald Rumsfeld--a grizzly reincarnation of the irresponsible manager of the Vietnam war, Robert Strange MacNamara. He brings the cold and efficient work habits of a Conservative CFO to the department of defense. Rumsfeld works at a desk that has no desk chair. He wears a pedometer to make sure that he walks 5 miles per day.
During Rumsfeld's last press conference in Kuwait, however, he set in motion a firestorm that revealed exactly what is wrong with the Bush policy in Iraq: Rumsfeld treats war like business.
Consider this response by Rumsfeld to the comment from Specialist Thomas Wilson as to why soldiers had to dig through scrap heaps to find ballistic glass and armored plating to protect themselves during combat:
[Just to make sure I have the "right" version, this accurate quote is from an article by Allan H. Ryskind that lambasts the liberal press for deceptively misrepresenting Rumsfeld's response. --JF]
RUMSFELD: I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being--the Army is--I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously--but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoolmaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but they're working at a good clip...the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
What is remarkable about this quote is not just the way Rumsfeld--whisked in and out of the battlezone for a few hours--so callously tells the soldier that you "do the best with what you have," but what he says before that--the so-called physics lesson.
The "matter of physics" that Rumsfeld discusses is the physics of a production line or "production and the capability of doing it."
Protecting the troops is limited to the carrying capacity of the armor production lines. Those lines are already at max capacity. It's about time and space, not priorities, money or desire.
Not true, says the Humvee manufacturing business in Indiana. It is about money. Lots of money. And it's not being spent to increase the speed with which armored vehicles are sent to the troops.
Why is it that we can find ways to solve the physics problem of launching a missile to bring down another missile, but we can't solve the physics problem of cutting the time to delivery of Humvees to soldiers in the Gulf?
Why is it that we can solve the physics problem of getting one President to dance in so many inaugural balls in such a short period of time? (One President, divided by total number of inaugural balls, at the velocity of--oh forget it...I do language, not physics.)
We solved the physics problem of building an army to liberate Europe--and that was before computers were invented.
No, the problem is not a physics problem. It's a "P and L" problem. Rumsfeld--and Bush by extension--have refashioned the military in business terms, and Rumsfeld is thinking in formulas designed to find the best possible relationship between Profit and Loss.
In this "war is business" mindset, the cost of a soldier's life is not measured in human terms, but measured in terms of the overall cost of production. In Rumsfeld's world, the war in Iraq is one giant exercise at waging a low cost war. He's operating at the minimum to prove it can be done. A soldier is a unit of manpower in this equation. Armor, a unit of safety. Based on actuarial tables and charts that I am sure Rumsfeld has created, he must have determined the ideal ration of soldier to armor necessary to reach an outcome in a particular period of time, at a fixed cost.
You go to war, in Rumsfeld's world, with the army that the formula says is necessary, not the army that the Army says is necessary.
The ultimate symbol of this business worldview is Rumsfeld's system of using a signature machine to sign condolence letters. Even in the height of the Vietnam war, Johnson signed the letters by hand.
Why would Rumsfeld do such a thing? Is he a monster? Does he not care about people?
The answer is this: Rumsfeld sees the entire war as an exercise in business efficiency. The solution to human inefficiency problems is to replace as many functions as possible with technology. Rumsfeld had probably put the signature machine in place to make sure that when casualties increased dramatically, the letters could still be sent in a timely fashion without slowing down his productivity.
Bush Sells the War with False Advertising
Of course, the real fantasy that Rumsfeld lives in is not that "freedom is on march" Iraq, but that his business approach to the war is succeeding. This war is bleeding cash.
Keep in mind, though, that it may be the CFO who cooks the books, but it's the CEO who bears the responsibility.
What, then, has been Bush's approach to the war?
Bush is the war's CEO and spokesperson. This war is unsafe at any speed, but Bush keeps selling it anyway.
How has Bush sold the war to the American people? He did it by purchasing a PR sales pitch from Frank Luntz.
Anyone who hasn't read the Luntz talking points on Iraq should go download them right now from The Left Coaster.
Luntz' talking points explain how Bush sold the war to the American people, why it worked, and why (I believe) he won (or made it appear as though he won) the election.
The Luntz plan is based on five key points that Bush and all his minions had to say each time they talked about the war. They're not about business, they're about "prevention and protection." But they evoke those ideas in this way:
[From the Frank Luntz "Talking Points" on Iraq. For a full version, see link above--JF]
WHAT MATTERS MOST
- "9/11 changed everything" is the context by which everything follows. No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11.
- The principles of "prevention and protection" still have universal support and should be addressed prior to talking about Iraq.
- "Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad" is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration. "It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington."
- "Terrorism has no boundaries, and neither should efforts to prevent it." Talk about how terrorism has taken the lives of the British, the Spanish, Italians, Germans, Israelis, innocents from all across the globe. Remind listeners that this is truly an international challenge.. "Americans are not the only target."
- "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Enough Said.
There is no question that these principles held the debate for Bush during the election. Curiously, the President seems to have stopped mentioning 9/11 in his sales pitch about the war, as of late. So, perhaps this is a time of transition. Maybe the CEO is looking for a new ad.
But the most important thing about the Luntz talking points is the very last point that it makes. Of all the things it says are important to talk about when Bush sells the war to the public, the very last thing is this:
Nothing matters more than Americans in the line of Fire. Never, ever, EVER give a speech or issue a press release that makes no mentin of our troops.
Rumsfeld clearly didn't take point #10 to heart. Oh, sure, he began his speech in Kuwait with a throw-away celebratory comment about the troops. But deep down--and not very deep down, I'd say--the war or Rumsfeld is about business. Rumseld thinks and breathes an image of himself as the world's greatest efficiency man.
Frame this War
There is a glimmer of hope in Rumsfeld's inability to stick to the Luntz talking points. The Cons use the Luntz language, but for them it is all about selling.
They sell the war, but they don't believe the pitch themselves.
As things get worse, the real reasons behind the war will begin to break through the surface with more and more regularity. Rumsfeld is the weakest link in this chain because first and foremost he is not a man who believes a crafted message is the key to success.
He believes: walk 5 miles a day, stand don't sit, keep costs low, light and lean--you go to war with the army that keeps costs down.
Rumsfeld believes that war is business, and that soldiers--like any form of labor--are the greatest threat to keeping costs down. Frameshop has just begun to frame this war. But we will continue to do so.
We will continue to do this work because Progressives do not see soldiers as cheap labor.
We see soldiers as idealistic people with the courage to take direct responsibility for protecting American lives.
We see respect for our soldiers and prisoners of war as the foundation of an effective foreign policy.
We view responsibility to our soldiers and our allies as the moral core of a strong military. We believe America leads by example--not by threats, deception, and invasion.
We can take back this debate, and we can change things on the ground in Iraq. But we have to start somewhere