In ordering 'Operation Swarmer' and taking a new large-scale ground offensive against Iraqi insurgents in Samara, President Bush is doing for Democrats what they can't (Murtha excepted) do for themselves - he is delineating terms of a new debate on Iraq:
Withdrawal vs. EscalationAnd that's good news for Democrats.
This is a lot better ground for Democrats than the frame of previous debates, which have been about the speed of withdrawal; more like Withdraw Fast versus Withdraw Eventually. Americans and Democrats are still somewhat divided on that issue.
Even to be more fair to the Bush position I'll say the debate is Withdrawal vs. Escalation With Iraqization. Still, withdrawal is where voters want to go(though they disagree about speed) --and it is not just a flicker in the polls but solid opinion considered over time. Escalation is a bizarre, out of touch position for 2006. In the rhetorical warfare, its the equivalent of Democrats being on a large cliff and the GOP having to charge up it to make their point.
And just in case we are inclined to believe that Samara just reflects a little housekeeping that had to be taken care of, the administration has made it clear where they stand. By stating on TV yesterday that the question of Iraq is about what we want to do in the Middle East 'for the next ten years,' Cheney is clearly in the escalation camp.
Despite Republican attempts to say it isn't so, this is a policy decision. It is not as the Republicans insist, a matter of just doing what the generals on the ground want to do. Generals will ask the leaders what to do and then accomplish the mission - but first policy is decided. Bush has chosen to ignore other 'generals on the ground' who offer advise contrary to his wishes. War does reflect policy decisions. We are questioning the direction of the war not micromanaging which routes the troops travel.
But Democrats need to speak about escalation, and in stereo. Democrats should clearly jump on the 'escalation' frame and be against the 'escalation' of the war in Iraq.
How much does a single word matter, well. I'm not totally in the 'George Lakoff school' of politics, where in the opinion of this UC Berkeley linguist, everything comes down to a frame or a cool sounding word, this is a high water mark for Lakoffism. Look at how much rhetorical damage the words 'civil war' have done. When the media started asking this question, opinion on Iraq plunged even further. If its a civil war, by definition we shouldn't be there. No one wants to get involved in somebody else's civil war, and while these two little words haven't ended our involvement in Iraq, they have made a return of public approval difficult to imagine. So too should Escalation should be part of every Democrat's vocabulary after this weekend.