As usual, Frameshop tries to reduce each view down to a single keyword. In addition--just to make things really clear--Frameshop will suggest that there are only three 'Dem Frames' on Iraq, each of which is primarily associated with a single Presidential candidate, even if there are several candidates who are grouping themselves around this position.
Why we chose to link one name to these positions rather than another has to do with the current dominance of each figure and each frame in the 2008 race.
| Frame #1: |
The "War Room" Frame |
| Major Proponent: |
Hillary Clinton |
| Key Points: |
- Iraq is a war.
- The war is complicated.
- The goal of the war is a 'Democratic Iraq.'
- For America to win the war, Democrats must first win the 2008 Presidential election.
- Once a Democrat is President, the situation in Iraq will improve. |
The first alternative to the Republican view of Iraq is the "War Room" frame, promoted by a variety of Democrats, but associated most clearly with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The Logic of the "War Room" Frame
The logic of the "War Room" frame can be seen in this snippet from Hilary Clinton's "Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy" (Nov 29, 2005):
There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict this Administration triggered that consumes a billion dollars a week, involves 150,000 American troops, and has cost thousands of American lives.
I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.
This logic is the essence of the "War Room" frame. Notice how Clinton quickly defines the situation in Iraq as a military "conflict" without "easy solutions." Her policy paper in Iraq frames the situation with the cautiousness of a military General sizing up the situation from a room full of experts. The broad logic is: haste will bring failure. In war we are cautious. And nobody is more cautious than those who are directing the war.
The "War Room" frame is a political strategy designed to cast the Democratic Party as "strong on defense" by talking about Iraq as if Democrats are themselves in a "War Room."
The Strengths of the "War Room" Frame
The strength of the "War Room" Frame is that it quickly disposes of the Republican lie about Democrats being "weak on defense" and provides a rallying cry for all Democrats who have felt most vulnerable to that attack. Democrats who believe that the public sees the party as "weak on defense" find a ready made logic of war-style "strength" in the "War Room" frame.
The other strength of the "War Room" frame is that it strikes a note of caution in an otherwise very ideological debate. Caution has the potential to bring calm.
The Weakness of the "War Room" Frame
The first weakness of the "War Room" Frame is its obvious proximity to the Republican position. It uses very similar language to the White House, but simply switches "Democrat" for "Republican" as the solution to the situation.
The second weakness is that it defines Iraq as a "war" rather than an "occupation." This creates an insolvable problem of having to show the American public how to "win" an "occupation"--which cannot be won, but only ended.
Conclusion: A Frame For Democrats Who Want To Look Like Republicans On Iraq
For Democrats who want to stay 'close' to Republicans on Iraq, the "War Room" frame is key. There are many, many Democrats in office who sincerely believe that the public perceives the Democrats as "weak on defense," and will gravitate towards this frame.
Also, most Democrats truly believe that the way to "solve" the Iraq problem is by getting elected, and a good many Democrats believe they cannot get elected without presenting a strong willingness to "win" the "war" in Iraq. In this mindset, the major difference Democrats can present to the voters our caution and intelligence in the face of a reckless and error-ridden Republican war campaign. The issue is not the war, but who is best suited to win it.
| Frame #2: |
The "Global Alliance" Frame |
| Major Proponent: |
Russ Feingold |
| Key Points: |
- Iraq is an occupation.
- Iraq has created U.S. national security problems that previously did not exist.
- The main problem is isolation from international allies in the global fight against terrorism.
- For America to achieve that goal, Democrats must redeploy troops and recruit allies.
- As long as we are in Iraq, U.S. national security is compromised. |
The second alternative to the Republican view of Iraq is the "Global Alliance" frame, promoted by a variety of Democrats, but associated most clearly with Presidential candidate Russ Feingold.
The Logic of the "Global Alliance" Frame
The logic of the "Global Alliance" frame can be seen in this snippet from Russ Feingold's "On The Issues" statement about U.S. foreign policy:
Fighting terrorism must be our our first foreign policy and national security priority. The United States must take focused, careful, and decisive steps to combat terrorist networks and enhance the security of the American people. At the same time, we cannot permit the fight against terrorism to be used to justify unwise policies, an erosion of our civil liberties, or a repudiation of our national values. Part of protecting our security is protecting our freedom and our way of life.
The serious threats to our national security demand a robust response. The U.S. must work to track down the leaders of terrorist networks and to cut off terrorists' access to financing. We must use diplomatic skill to build solid relationships around the world to facilitate crucial intelligence sharing and cooperation. The United States must combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and develop more effective ways to prevent and contain chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. And we must work to bring stability to weak and failing states, where disorder presents dangerous opportunities to international criminals.
I think that both Congress and the American people must carefully consider how
the United States should proceed in our foreign policy. The war in Iraq triggered an important debate about the direction that the country is taking in international affairs.
Here we see the logic behind the statements of a great many Democrats who adhere to the "Global Alliance" frame. Proponents of this frame begin not by talking about 'war' in Iraq per se, but by defining a much larger vision for national security. The security of the United States is not about Iraq, but terrorism. And the fight against terrorism does not depend on the situation in Iraq alone, but on our overall strategy of building alliances and working with allies to contain, limit, and control those groups that seek to use terrorism in the world.
The "Global Alliance" Frame fits into a broad political strategy that casts 'danger' as 'isolation.' In this frame, the Iraq war has made America less safe because: it has alienated our allies and left us alone in the world. We cannot protect America alone in the face of the new threat of small groups that seek to use terrorism to attack.
The Strengths of the "Global Alliance" Frame
The strength of this frame is its broad vision for American national security based on leadership rather than military occupation. The "Global Alliance" proponents speak often about how the Iraq war as isolated a once great American foreign policy from allies who no longer trust the Bush Administration.
The second strength of this frame is its bold attempt to present a global strategy for protecting America, rather than just critique the Bush Administration. This logic emerges through talk of 'wasted resources' and 'getting bogged down' in Iraq at the expense of the bigger picture goal of protecting America.
The Weakness of the "Global Alliance" Frame
The first weakness of
the of this frame is that it does not seem to have momentum, and therefore not enough adherants. This is because it is very difficult to demonstrate that 'alliances' keep the United States safe from attack.
The second weakness is that this frame defines national security without real talk about use of the military. The frame lacks any direct appeal to military service or pride that the Republican ideology of domination controls. The actual talk about where U.S. forces will go to protect Americans is absent from this frame.
Conclusion: A Frame For Democrats Seeking 100% Rejection Of Neo-Con Ideology
For
Democrats who want to reject the Neo-Con ideology of the Bush White House, the "Global Alliance" Frame is the frame of choice. It attracts and will continue to attract those candidates who are seeking to present a big picture alternative to the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who see "brute force" and "pre-emption" as the way to protect America.
Obviously, when presenting an ideology to compete with the dominant ideology in power, it helps to have massive resources (e.g., cable broadcast stations, radio talk shows, lots and lots of allies at the state and local level). Therefore, this frame which speaks most of the need to marshal resources and build allies--ironically--seems to need more resources and allies before it can hold the debate.
| Frame #3: |
The "Regional Stability" Frame |
| Major Proponent: |
Wesley Clark |
| Key Points: |
- Iraq is a regional conflict.
- The U.S. occupation of Iraq has isolated Iraq from regional neighbors.
- Success in Iraq depends on U.S. catalyzing regional cooperation.
- For America to achieve that goal, Democrats must convince regional allies U.S. action is not a threat.
- As long as we refuse to engage in regional diplomacy, Iraq will not be stable. |
The third alternative to the Republican view of Iraq is the "Regional Stability" frame, promoted by a variety of Democrats, but associated
most clearly with Presidential candidate Wesley Clark.
The Logic of the "Regional Stability" Frame
The logic of the "Regional Stability" frame can be seen in this snippet from Wesley Clark's "Op-Ed" about Iraq in the Washington Post (Aug 26, 2005):
In the old, familiar fashion, mounting US casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. Now, more than half the American people believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake now to pull out, start pulling out, or set a date to pull out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq - a strategy the Administration has failed to develop and articulate.
From the outset of the American post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy - diplomatic, political, and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault-line between Shia and Sunni Islam - and for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation. Iraq cannot be "isolated from its neighbors and tensions in the region. We needed to engage Iraq's neighbors to insure that a stable, democratizing Iraq was not a threat to them, to isolate Iraq from outside supplies, leadership, and manpower, and to gain from them resources and support to alleviate the burdens on the US.
This logic "Regional Stability"
frame becomes clear if we think about this statement in terms of the U.S. military intervention in Bosnia. This frame talks about a 'three-pronged' approach, drawing on langauge that evokes a stable structure (e.g., the three 'prongs' of politics, diplomacy and military). The goal is to bring Iraq's regional allies into 'cooperation' so that it is no longer 'isolated' from 'neighbors.'
The "Regional Stability" frame is a political strategy designed to cast the
Democratic Party as a force that seeks to resolve regional problems in the world, the key to protecting humanitarian interests--a vital Democratic Party value.
The Strengths of the "Regional Stability" Frame
The strength of this frame is its pragmatism. From the moment we begin to speak of 'three-pronged-approaches, the debate shifts to a much more realistic and "on the ground" tone. This frame does not sound politicized at all.
The other strengths of this frame is that it is build on previous success of the U.S. to resolve a very complicated military problem (Bosnia), and the absence of any loud or pressing critique of the Bush White House. This frame is about getting things done.
The Weakness of the "Regional Stability" Frame
The real weakness of
this frame is that it lacks any specifics, but seems to need them. How is the military approach of this frame different than what is already on the ground? It is not clear.
Conclusion: A Frame For Democrats Who See U.S. Action In Bosnia As A Success To Be Emulated
For Democrats who want to build on the success of previous U.S. military actions in recent decades, this is the frame they will gravitate towards. General Clark is a symbol of a pragmatic solution to what was a very difficult--seemingly intractable--problem in Europe. That problem is now gone. So, the logic of a return to the successful 'team' and 'leaders' of the previous conflict is clear.
The big question that hangs over this frame, however, is whether those details can be translated into the particular situation in Iraq, and whether the movement Neo-Con radicals with a griphold on U.S. power can be displaced.
© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman
cross posted
Comments are closed on this story.