We all know there is a general consensus among Democrats that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Most of us were against the war before it started. We are still against it, and we have now been joined in that view by other Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Crazy as it seems, however, I have never seen the best argument for withdrawal articulated properly and clearly. If it has, I have not run across it - and I read and watch a lot. Why does it matter? Because the elections have not happened yet, and I see Democratic candidates, pundits, and other opinion makers floundering inarticulately when faced with the simplest argument put out by the Republicans. And unless we can put out a knock-out argument, the elections may not go our way.
A case in point was this past Friday's discussion in Bill Maher's "Real Time" on HBO.
Friday, October 6 at 11 pm, Real Time with Bill Maher goes to Washington D.C for a special "Bill on the Hill" edition.
Our Real Time guests will include actor/comedian Robin Williams, terrorism expert Richard Clarke, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and talk-show host Chris Matthews -- with one-on-one interviews with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). Plus, a few "October surprises!"
http://www.hbo.com/...
It was pathetic to watch Bill Maher, Richard Clarke, and Robin Williams, (Chris Matthews came on a few minutes later) arguing against Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, three against one, and floundering, on whether the US should withdraw from Iraq. It was a text-book example of how to lose a debate that has already been won, and it is infuriating to see the same scene repeated all across the country, in crucial election debates, ads, discussions, and newscasts.
You might say that it does not matter - most people have already turned against the war. But this kind of complacency is what can lead to another crushing defeat, because Bush and his minions will not rest, and will keep pushing their line.
Here is the problem. Bush's current argument for the war is two-fold: to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and eventually to the Middle East as a whole. To fight international terrorists who are engaged against the US in Iraq. Those are two very worthy goals, and we must not give up on them - we must not give up on democracy, and we must not surrender to the enemy.
Bill Maher's argument for withdrawal is simple and silly. It was a bad idea to go to Iraq. Look at the mess. Look at how many American soldiers are dead. Look at how many Iraqis are dead. It would have been a good idea if it had not been this messy, but now it is a bad idea to continue. Bill Maher posed the question this way, as a way to start the debate - haven't the current developments in Iraq shown that it is a bad idea to continue the war, so shouldn't we get out?
Well, Ileana Ross-Lehtinen answered emphatically no. Bringing democracy to Iraq is a good idea. Fighting our enemies rather than surrendering is a good idea. And you know what? She is right. Democracy is good. Surrendering is bad. Bush wins the argument. Again. Maher, Clarke, and Williams were perplexed and completely impotent against this simple argument. You are never going to convince a rational being that democracy is bad and surrender is good.
But they overlooked the best argument for withdrawal. To get where we want we need to grant that democracy is good and surrender is bad, but see where that takes us in Iraq. What would it take to achieve those goals? Well, total and permanent defeat of those who stand in the way of US plans for Iraq. Who are they? The Iraqi people. All of them. Contrary to what Bush wants us to believe, the primary enemy in Iraq is not Al Qaeda. It is the Iraqi people. To win a permanent and final victory we would have to kill them all. We would have to kill them all to "save" them. That is what it will take to achieve US sponsored regime change. The question then becomes, does the US public support killing most or all Iraqis in order to finally win this? The Iraqis are fighting an insurgency against foreign occupiers. Americans should ask themselves if they would ever surrender if a foreign power invaded the US territory to impose its own brand of regime change.
So, democracy is a good idea, but it must arise out of the Iraqis' own efforts. For the US to impose it on the Iraqis, the US would have to kill most of them. There are other ways for the US to promote a democratic outcome in Iraq.
The key here is that George Bush and everyone who supports "staying the course" in Iraq needs to be asked: what will count as victory? Who is the US fighting, and what would it take to defeat this enemy? It needs to be said that the US is fighting the Iraqi people, who are now fighting against US occupation of their homeland. It needs to be said that no proud people will cease fighting against invaders of their homeland. "Give me freedom or give me death" is a cry in many languages. The only way to achieve a military victory is to kill them all. Kill them for what? So we can give them democracy. Put this way Bush's argument is seen for what it is. Put this way we can appeal to the Republican's values and love for freedom. Put this way we can win this election and stop the butchery.