Dodd, Edwards, Obama, and the presentation of false choices
Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:15:24 PM PDT
Barack Obama earlier this week promised us a new, comprehensive Iraq policy, foreshadowed his statement with his questioning of Petraeus and Crocker at yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, and today released excerpts of his prepared remarks in advance of his speech. When he delivered the promised update of his Iraq policy position earlier today (h/t Adam B for full text) -- in revision of his plans laid out in January -- John Edwards and Christopher Dodd had received ample opportunity to prepare responses, clarifying anti-war credentials. They obliged.
However, before we discuss responses and approaches, and Iraq policy I'd like to highlight one of the most meaningful aspects of Obama's speech Wednesday.
President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq’s present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest – and a moral obligation – to act.
The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice. We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I’m tired of this notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are better than that as a nation.
...and earlier in the speech:
George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran – it’s precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he’s badly mistaken. It’s time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf.
Administration policy to stay the course in Iraq is now wholly based on the false choice:
Stay the course or surrender.
Support the surge or immediate, disorderly withdrawal.
Hawk or Dove.
With us or against us.
These artificial dichotomies may and have been discredited on their merits. Staying the course is unlikely to produce a new, effectual result. The surge is an impotent measure against the problem at hand of diplomatic reconciliation. However, arguing those merits isn't completely necessary when the original formulation of the question is fallacious. Practical policy is not constructed out of unrealistic ideological extremes. We're accustomed to rejecting this from the Bush administration, so we should be equally attentive to its use by our own candidates.
Ending aside, what did Dodd and Edwards have to say?
Dodd:
I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline.
...
I urge Senators Obama and Clinton not to backtrack on the need for a firm, enforceable deadline and state clearly and directly whether they will support an Iraq measure if it does not include one.
or... Either you echo my call, or you do not oppose non-restricted supplemental funding.
I reject this choice. Senator Obama has already opposed continued supplemental funding of the Iraq war without restrictions. There is no cause for him to explicitly address Dodd's call in order to state his position on Iraq policy. The speech was meant to update the position statement resting in place since January, and to react to the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker in the preceding days.
There are several potential approaches to opposing the funding bill. One is direct: no timing then no money. The other is indirect: tear down the administration's case for continuation. Dodd received what he asked for- an unequivocal answer that the war must end now and the troops must be extricated from combat situations by the end of the coming year, as fast as Obama considers feasible from consulting with military advisors, and he based this upon the recognition that the surge was not effective, political progress is not forthcoming and there is no military solution to the problem. These arguments will emerge in the debate that has not yet taken place.
Edwards:
Senator Obama would withdraw only 1-2 combat brigades a month between now and the end of next year, which for the next several months could essentially mimic the president's own plans to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer.
...
Enough is enough. We don't need to 'begin' to end the war now. What we need to do now is actually end the war.
...
Congress must stand firm and say: No timetable, no funding. No excuses.
My plan, or you are not "ending" the war.
I reject this choice as well. Obama provided a specific "timetable" for troop withdrawal, John, one that cannot remotely be confused with Bush's approach to the Iraq war, given that it calls for all combat troops to have been withdrawn by the time that either Edwards or Obama takes office. There is no literal difference between "beginning to end" and "ending" this war, and Edwards' semantic accusation distracts from any difference that might be made of it. Obama argues that the withdrawal cannot be conducted responsibly at a greater rate. Does Edwards disagree, and on what basis does he do so? If Edwards believes withdrawal can happen more quickly, then that is a valid criticism. Instead, he chose to manufacture an artificial distinction.
Edwards and Dodd offered false choices meant to identify themselves as the preferred anti-war candidate. These distract from any meaningful construction of Iraq War policy, as we head into another key debate on the subject in congress. Candidates need to call upon those Senators who do not already oppose supplemental funding. Candidates need to add to a reasonable alternative plan. Candidates need to cease their game of pacifist oneupmanship in order to avoid margianalizing their position, and consequently strengthening the position of those who will continue to support the war.
Additional threads for discussion:
Dodd, Edwards, Obama and Iraq h/t TomP for setting the campaign statements together.
Stop it!!!, the imperative to those discussing the Iraq debate from kredwyn.
The Anti-War Primary Now Has a Name from viralvoice.
Permalink | 25 comments