The right-wing is really pouncing on their new "white flag" frame using it in everything from talking points to
videos.
How to counter this since we all know that demanding a sensible and responsible timetable is much different than what Bush and Cheney did in the face of the draft (ie, cut and run)?
Simple... we take stock of what this is really about. Explanation below the fold...
The cons keep calling any sort of mention of a responsible timetable and exit strategy "cut and run" or "white flag" -- both of which are part of larger
surrender and, larger still,
cowardice and
weak frames.
The counter that I propose to this is fairly efficient. In fact, Bush himself even started to use it before the quagmire became entrenched. Progressives have to acknowledge that we did "win" something over there -- we accomplished some sort of mission and scored some sort of win.
We won the war; but we're losing the peace.
Now some will quibble with "we won the war" but really, what was "Mission Accomplished" and the 24/7 porn of the Hussein statue being toppled all about? Winning the war. We invaded Iraq. Took control of Baghdad and every political, military and infrastructure apparatice. We won the war.
Now, we're losing the peace. Iraqis want us out. The world wants us out. A majority of the American people want us out. We're losing the peace.
The violence is only escalating. Our brave soldiers are being killed more frequently. None of the supposed after-the-fact benchmarks has resulted in a calming; rather, the opposite is happening as time passes. We are losing the peace.
What does this counterframe say about an exit strategy and debating a reasonable timetable for withdrawal?
It relates to several larger frames about patriotism, peace and (subconsciously) strategy (all of which succesfully counter the 'cowardice' frame).
Here's a breakdown:
We won the war. This portion of the counterframe acknowledges that the actual invasion was succesful. The stated goals (whether you believe they were stated beforehand or after the fact) of toppling and capturing Hussein and his henchmen were achieved. Psychologically, this helps evoke patriotism, national pride and support for the military. "We won the war" is a vital part of the counterframe because it is a way to "save face" and introduce the second part of the counterframe.
But we're losing the peace. This summarizes the American majority's position on the Iraq Invasion. Our intrepid soldiers are sitting ducks and (to mix in another metaphor) only adding fuel to the insurgents' fires. They're doing good work but the Iraqis just want us out and some of them are willing to kill our sons and daughters to get us out. The sooner we exit responsibly the better for everyone's sakes. "But we're losing the peace" inherently implies there was no plan for the war and also psychologically prepares a rationale for a reasonable withdrawal.
Other elements to reframing:
Progressives need to also speak about responsibility, trust and reasonableness.
Responsibility:
- Iraqis ought rightly to be responsible for their own destiny. If this was was truly about ending any WMD programs, removing and replacing Hussein, and "setting the Iraqi people free" then they need to fight for their own independence. Our Founding Fathers fought our own American War for Independence and the Iraqi leaders of the modern day need to develop their own course.
- Americans must take responsibility for ensuring long-lasting peace in Iraq. Rep. Murtha's withdrawal plan does that by making sure our brave troops are 'just over the horizon' and at the ready should they be needed.
Trust:
- Americans must trust that Iraqis can be a self-determined people and guide their own future.
- One could also begin to tie in George Lakoff's writings on how (even deeper than lying) this conservative administration broke the people's trust by continuing to use misleading information and rhetoric in the build-up to war.
Reasonableness:
- By framing any calls for withdrawal or timetable planning as "reasonable" (ie, a reasonable timetable, a reasonable exit plan) it helps to set up that the progressive position is rationale while the conservative "stay the (wrong) course" is unreasonable.
- This also helps to mitigate calls of 'cut and run' or 'white flag'. If we demand a reasonable exit (immediate or not) that's a world of difference from simply demanding an exit.
....As with any framing, there are certainly other words that could be used in place of these. Even "responsible" and "reasonable" are somewhat interchangeable in several contexts. These are just my thoughts on how we can stand up for our position and begin to counter the cons' "cowardice" frame.