CALL TO ACTION
President Bush has weakened this country with a directionless war that kills more and more soldiers each day.
President Bush insists that this is a "pre-emptive" war, yet he leaves our soldiers wide open to attack.
The President has cheapened the lives of our troops, ignored their calls for help, and then claimed that this war in Iraq has kept Americans safe.
Our soldiers are Americans.
The war in Iraq is killing our soldiers.
The war in Iraq is killing Americans.
The Bush White House controls this debate by describing Iraq as the "front line" in a broader:
war on terror
Do not accept the terms of this debate.
Instead, take control of the debate on Iraq by saying:
- Iraq is a war against our soldiers
- The war in Iraq has weakened America
- President Bush would rather leave Americans to die in Iraq than admit he was wrong
WARNING: It is not enough to "support" the troops. Only a loud and vocal
assault on the President's policy, combined with a
passionate plea for the lives of our soldiers will take control of this issue.
Frameshop is open.
Not about 'Support'
Support for the troops is a problematic frame. The military defends us all and the soldiers who make up that effort do so for everyone.
When we say that we "suport the troops," we take the weakest of all possible positions. Our point is stronger than this commonplace position. We adamantly reject the terms of the war because it weakens our military, kills our soldiers, and undermines this country.
Remember these Progressives beliefs:
- America leads by example
- Responsibility is the core of a strong military
- Respect is the foundation of an effective foreign policy
Here are a few ways to strengthen our military in Iraq, protect the lives of our soldiers, and end the war:
- Lead our allies back to our side
- Respond to our soldiers's calls for better equipment, more boots on the ground, and shorter rotations
- Respect the will of the Iraqi people by pulling our soldiers out of Iraq after the elections
Hopefully, Frameshop will draw a few experts on military policy into the discussion so we can
refine these opening suggestions. But they are a start.
Lakoff on the "war on terror"
What we can do with certainty right now is take a closer look at the phrase "war on terror" to see why it is so problematic.
Iraq is not the war on terror.
Iraq is a war against our troups.
Are there "terrorists" in Iraq? I don't know if that's the best term to use. But there are peope there willing to strap dynamite to their chest and then use themselves as a weapon to kill. That's how the war against our troops is now being fought.
But what does this phrase "war on terror" evoke that makes it so problematic?
To answer this question, I turn to Lakoff himself. Here is an excerpt from a Lakoff interview in which he discusses why the phrase "war on terror" is so problematic. Lakoff is sharp in these answers, so rather than trying to summarize his points, I'll speak back to them as he lays them out:
You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" -- why?
There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.
Next, "war." How many terrorists are there -- hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.
So, it's not really possible to fight a war against a state of mind and, what's more, "war" is deceptive because it implies clear sides. In Iraq there is a war against our soldiers. With regard to "terrorism," we have a different kind of danger--a struggle, an operation, an all out effort to prevent, but not a war.
Point #2:
What about the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?
Those are metaphorical. Real wars are wars against countries, and in the "war on terror," we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We're acting at the wrong level. Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush -- a "war president" with "war powers," which imply that ordinary protections don't have to be observed. A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words -- "war on terror" -- they've enacted vast political changes.
This is a huge point. Rather than protect Americans (remember: Soldiers are Americans; the war in Iraq is killing Americans), the "war on terror" has been successful in extending the President's powers. And it shows no end in sight.
Lakoff's final, and logest point:
Bush has positioned war with Iraq as part of the "war on terror." How can progressives frame opposition to the Iraq war without being tarred as unpatriotic or as in league with the terrorists?
By criticizing Bush for weakening us. By saying out loud, while waving the flag, that the Iraq war has made us more vulnerable to terrorists in many ways. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or al Qaeda. By moving troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, Bush may have let Osama bin Laden escape, and he certainly allowed al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup. Moreover, the Iraq war has recruited more terrorists. The $200 billion we've spent there could have been used to enhance homeland security, which has mostly been ignored. It could also have been used to address the root causes of terrorism, which the Bush administration is ignoring. Moreover, Bush has allowed North Korea and Iran to move toward becoming nuclear powers, while he concentrated our efforts on Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons program. Allowing nuclear proliferation aids terrorism.
The Bush reply is always avoidance: that we're better off without Saddam Hussein. Clinton gave the clearest rebuttal of that argument: There are other bad guys like Saddam Hussein in the world, in North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. There are bad guys all over the place. Are we going to invade all these countries? As Clinton said, we can't possibly attack, imprison or kill everyone who's against us. We have to make friends.
You can also take a patriotic stand and criticize Bush for being ineffectual. You have to be on the offensive. Why did we go into Iraq without a peace plan? Without properly equipping our troops? Without our allies?
How do you frame this issue of Iraq? You say, "We go to war when we have to, when it's really necessary, when we're being attacked. We don't go to war as an instrument of economic policy. We don't go to war as an instrument of geopolitical positioning. We go to war when we have no other choice. We go with a plan for winning the peace, and we go with enough troops to be effective. Those are the minimal conditions." In short, you don't have to go on the defensive at all.
[emphasis mine --JF]
We must speak strongly and decisively. That is the key to the frame. No weak positions of support and looking back. We must accept where we are, see that the real danger is that our military and our country have been
weakened by the President, and loudly insist on the urgency of strength to save the lives of our troops and protect this country from Bush's weaknesses.
And we have to do all this without reinforcing the Neo-Con vision of the world.
Everybody take a deep breath. We can do this.
Let's reconnect with what we believe.
Bush Weakens the Military
The real story that has yet to be told is that a strong military policy would not have resulted in this situation.
In following the policy of the Neo-Cons, President Bush has undermined our soldiers at every step. Just as they were about to capitalize on the success in Afghanistan by capturing Bin Laden, he pulled them out and dropped them into Iraq. Rather than preparing for a complex and short occupation, he flew by the seat of his pants and left the soldies hanging in the wind in deadly situation. Rather than heed the calls of experienced soldiers--those actually fighting on the ground--Bush and his cabinet have shamed and undercut our soldiers by adhering to business models and science fiction fantasy about what they imagine the military could become.
All these weaknesses in leadership have resulted in a profound and unforgiveable result: the pointless death of our soldiers.
We mourn the loss of every life. And all the Iraqi civilians and soldiers who have died in this conflict also have a place in our hearts.
But we are angry that the President continues to make choices that undermine our soldiers and result in the deaths of our brothers, sisters, sons, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers--Americans.
Why--give all the advice, all the answers, all the experience on the ground--why does President Bush continue to abandon our troops to this situation in Iraq?
Because to change course would be tantamount to admitting that he was wrong.
The ultimate sign of a weak leader is the inability to admit a mistake, change course, and make the situation better.
President Bush has refused to admit a mistake, because he is afriad of the political ramifications. And he would rather that our soldiers die than accept those political consequences and move forward.
Our Message
As this year draws to a close, Frameshop focuses attention on the outrage of this situation in Iraq.
There are many issues that should bring us to a point of outrage, but none are more important than outrage at the useless death and disrespect for idealistic Americans.
There are many reasons why people choose to enlist in the military. Progressives may not agree with all of the motives, and may even disagree strongly with the politics or voting patterns of many of the men and women fighting in Iraq.
But soldiers first and foremost are idealists. They believe that the situation in the world calls for action, commitment, and responsibility.
Frameshop believes that Progressive politics shares this fundamental idealism with our soldiers in Iraq.
It is time to take control of this debate from those who feel that yellow ribbons and hollow rhetoric are enough to "support" the troops.
Two questions to start discussion:
What will be the phrase that Frameshop uses to express the weakness of the President's policy in Iraq, and the strength in our response?
How will Frameshop best express the outrage at how this President has cheapened the lives of our soldiers?
Let's roll up our sleeves and reach out to all of the Americans in Iraq that need to hear this strong message...
Update [2004-12-28 22:43:18 by Jeffrey Feldman]:
Great phrase from the comments:
a "war on terror" is like "fire on gasoline"
(Thanks to Paul Rosenberg!)