Some Thoughts On Opposing The War In Iraq

[The Magistrate]

What is necessary in this matter is to get people thinking and moving in the right direction; whether they are doing so for the correct reason, from a political sophisticate's point of view, is not so important. To give an illustration from the Viet Nam period, it should be remembered that the collapse of political support for the war that led to U.S. disengagement was not a wholly left phenomenon. There arose a good deal of opposition to the venture on the right as well, by the end, but it followed a very different line. The opposition on the right held that if we were not going to fight to win, there was no point to the thing, and it was just a waste of lives and effort and a disgrace overall. But people who held that view were, effectively, allies of the anti-war movement, though they doubtless detested demonstrators and thought them Communist dupes at best. Still, they made an effective contribution to forcing the end of the thing; indeed, it might not have ended without them.

Probably our most widely shared priority here in this forum is the end of the war in Iraq. What we do not seem to agree on, within this wider agreement, is how that is to be done, and what line is best suited to solidify popular support for ending the thing. That the war is an exercise in criminality conducted with an abhorrent degree of atrocity is an accurate statement of fact, but that is a matter of minor importance in assessing whether or not it is a political line useful for appeal to the mass of the people in the matter. In my judgement it most emphatically is not, because it is certain to offend and drive away a great many people, and among those enraged by it would be a great many people who, if asked today by a pollster for their opinion, would say that they do not support the war and want it ended. What is necessary is to conceive a line that will have the widest possible appeal, and get the greatest possible number of people on board with the idea of ending the matter quickly, which is certainly the correct action. Such a line must be tailored to the sensibilities of the audience to be reached, not to the sensibilities of those pressing the line.

An important element of such a line must be an appeal to the native interests and patriotism of the mass of the people. This must concentrate on the harm being done to the country, and to them, by the current policy. The expenditure of treasure and lives, treasure that could benefit folks at home, and lives that as American lives are worth more than any number of foreigners, and that these expenditures that bring no benefit to the people are being made without the slightest chance of achieving anything worthwhile, provides the basis for the most popular possible line to press. Does this line appeal to a variety of base motives many here, myself included, will find offensive in parts? Yes. It appeals to selfishness, and it appeals to undercurrents of cultural and even racial prejudice. It is precisely these things that give the line its potential force, for though these are bad things, they are real and predominant things that actually shape and move the actions of most people. The point of the exercise is not to foster moral improvement among the mass of the people, it is to move them to agree, and agree passionately and with a vocabulary of demand, with the right course of action, and that as quickly as can be contrived.

In support of this over-all line, it is most adviseable to lay great stress on the incompetence with which the exercise is being conducted. People who denounce a political figure as simply saying he or she could fight the war better when one raises this matter are missing the point entirely. It is the incompetence with which the thing is conducted that gives great edge to the line set out above; it is the incompetence that guarantees the sacrifice of treasure and lives will bring no good result, no conceivable benefit to the people. Further, people do not like incompetence and incompetents, and do not want to associate themselves with that, at any remove. They view incompetence in leaders as a tremendous and harmful failing, and if convinced a leader is incapable of doing things right, will withdraw support in a hurry. Incompetent leaders harm the country: everyone knows this.

Any pressing of the line of criminality and atrocity must be done carefully, and always in a way that appeals to the people's tremendous affection for their country. Saying, for example, that torture of prisoners is what the U.S. always does, and simply demonstrates again the evil nature of the United States, is a horribly counter-productive thing. Again, it does not matter that a fair enough case could be made for the truth of the proposition, because it is certain to enrage a great proportion of the people who hear it, because they will hear it, owing to their identification with the country, as an accusation they are themselves evil criminals. The line that will gain the greatest and widest support is one that appeals to the people's affection for and pride in their country. Denouncing such acts as profoundly un-American, as not what this great country is about, not the way we do things here, is the line on this matter that could have the greatest appeal. It makes opposition to these things an expression of idealist patriotism, perhaps the most potent political force in existance, and it isolates those who do and support such things as foreign to the spirit of the country. That is what most people want to believe, and what we want is for the greatest possible number of people to be moved to despise the torturers and the leaders that promote torture, and be eager to take political action against them at the ballot box.

In the context of these lines of attack, the issue of the lies that put the country into this venture is extremely potent, and can be blended not only with the incompetent and un-American conduct of the damnably futile and destructive thing, but with the issue of money corruption and profiteering, something working people in particular deeply abhor and despise. People do not like being lied to, and to be decieved into dangerous folly enrages people. To have been decieved into dangerous folly so someone could line his pockets at their expense can put people into a damned dangerous temper. To state that "These pissants lied to us and sent our soldiers out to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq just so they could line their damn pockets with our tax dollars!" may not be a textbook expression of left progressivism, but it is quite likely to resonate with a tremendous number of people, and move them towards the actions we desire them to take.

[saltpoint]

1. A magnificent post, if I do say so, sir.

Bravo.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Greedy, incompetent, opportunists -OR- Ruthless imperialists...

who garb themselves in the usual patriotic disguise. I lean toward the latter, and, given their apparent control of the counting of votes, I suspect that until we all see that we are serving masters that could actually give a damn about our welfare, nothing will change.

[BootinUp]

3. You are really "on a roll" as they say.

I hope many get the chance to read your post here. It does much to explain the political reality in America today and how to achieve our goals.

[bigtree]

4. thanks for these helpful words

I hope they help save some lives

[cali]

5. Wise words.

Thank you for them. I agree that resonating with the largest number of people possible is vital to achieving our goals.

[infogirl]

6. Our new message should be...

SAVE our Troops!

[The Magistrate]

17. An Excellent Line, Ma'am!

Welcome to the forum!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. A good treatise that I generally agree with.

When we were disrupting classes in the '60s a sympathetic PolySci prof said much the same thing in a more succinct way.

"The war will end when the enough bodybags come home and the average American has to reach for his wallet to pay for it." (As close as I can recall).

In effect, it was the Vietnamese that ended the war in Vietnam. Just as the Iraqis are doing now.

The American people are too easily swayed by flag waving "patriotism" and calls to "support our troops". They have the ability to disassociate themselves from pictures/stories of atrocities by identifying the tortured/killed/maimed as "the enemy". Not that it is uniquely American. The Germans identified the Jews as the fearsome "enemy" allowing themselves to believe that Germany was being "defended" by shipping them off for "relocation". The Brits and Americans gave in to the same disassociation to devastate Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although I agree with your thesis that the appeals to the humanity of the American people are likely to fall on deaf ears, I find it important, necessary, to continue to protest and identify the atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by our military and politicians.

This war is far more than a "mistake" or an exercise in incompetance. It is a catastrophe for the Iraqis and the whole Middle East. And, for the stability of the world.

The very idea that America can establish a Pax Americanum through force, or the threat of force, has to be squashed.

As I see it, the American Empire is crumbling. Economically, socially, and spiritually. And, like previous empires we are thrashing about trying to hold the threads together. We are surrounded by competitors for power and we are losing. So, we've turned to military force to try and hold on for a bit longer and hope for a miracle.

The most unfortunate thing is the victims of our hubris.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[bemildred]

8. The pragmatic view Sir, and well stated.

I don't entirely agree, I think more "radical" points of view need to be aired as well, but well stated all the same, and perhaps more prudent than the views of verbal bomb-throwers like myself.

[The Magistrate]

9. It Is A Two Stage Process, Sir

Once the inertia is broken, and a number of people are moving in the needed direction, some will be more open to the more radical view. If the persons put in office as the result of pursuing "stealth" lines such as the above do things that benefit the people and gain their approval, then first there will spreadca disenchasntment with the siren-songs of the reactionary elements, and consequently a greater openness to progressive and even radical lines.

But put bluntly, it does seem of value in this matter just now for radical lines to be muted, in the interest of achieving the immediate goal radicals and moderates alike certainly do desire. That people chafe at such advice is understandable, for it is a frustrating thing they are being asked to do. But discipline, both organizational discipline and self-discipline, is essential to success in any conflict. Concentration on the destination, rather than the particular route towards it, seems wisest to me.

[bemildred]

12. Sigh, I remember once when it was chic to be "radical".

And many mouth-breathing high-school seniors hoped to grow up to be one someday. But it has been a while now.

I must say your piece reminded me a bit of Edmund Wilson's(*) discussion of Lenin's tactics leading up to 1917, although that may be a bit too far afield as a comparison with your piece. There is a good deal of talk about the need to guide the people until they have the ability to guide themselves, and so on. And Lenin was (in Wilson's view) very much the pragmatist, he wanted to get the revolution going, the Tsar overthrown, and had little patience with theory and principle except as they served that practical end. It's all a bit naive, or perhaps optimistic about what we are capable of, but there is an element of truth in it that cannot be ignored by anyone seeking to bring about democratic change. People are not by nature that democratic in their sentiments, it has to be learned.

(*) "To The Finland Station", Edmund Wilson, 1940.

[The Magistrate]

15. A Lot Can Be Learned From Lenin, My Friend

Whatever one thinks of the Soviet state, the successful contrivance of revolution on a great scale is a master-work of political art damned few have achieved. Mao, as well, displayed that sort of ruthless pragmatism in setting the line to be followed: indeed, success for the Communist Party in China came from a line of exalting nativist patriotism, and denouncing reactionaries as insufficiently imbued with such a spirit.

[radio4progressives]

10. Excellent Post, Magistrate

I absolutely support every word posited here...

Our struggle in solidarity to end this wicked enterprise, it is absolutely imperative we bring aboard those who are/were supporters of the line that was sold to the American people (with the enormouse assistance of the corporate media) and make it their cause too.

Incompetance works very well, but so does Deception (Betrayal of Trust).. Being Lied to about a matter as grave as this, at such great cost to human life and national treasury - for motivations that are dubious at best - is bringing people aboard our cause as the polls are finally indicating.

The Rhetoric from our party leaders need to focus like a laser on these to points of fact, and not mince words about it - we have more than enough evidence to back these claims, but it need not be labored - people already know - it need only to be pointed out very directly and succinctly..

The painful and frustrating thing, is this where too many of our party leaders have failed all of us. We need someone to articulate the real issues directly, kind of like the way Murtha does.. but a bit more succinctly and with a bit less redundency, (repeating the same points over and over again in the same breath)...

In order for Progressives to gain more confidence though, we have to have leadership in the party who can and does speaks with this voice.. currently certain party leaders confuse the public, with what appears to be support for the status quo in terms of agenda (long term permenant occupation) - and that's the problem we progressives have with our own party leaders.

Never the less, focusing on Incompetence as well as Deception, as an important underlying issue to bring about an end to this enterprise is the key strategy in bringing the rest of the country to unanimity with us as you have articulated so well!



on edit: highly recommend this post!

[The Magistrate]

11. Thank You, Ma'am

It is a pleasure to be in agreement with you. We are certainly in agreement, too, that leaders of our Party must lead, and speak out on this matter, in words that will resonate with the people of the country. By doing so ourselves, we may perhaps lead them to the water....

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[radio4progressives]

27. I always love your tags..

and yes! let's get our message straight up the pike, and to the people through on the mic's.!

where are the people, indeed!

[ninkasi]

14. The deception issue is one I've used recently

I have used deception when discussing politics with a few of my friends who voted for Bush in 2000, because they took him at his word. It would have been counterproductive if I had used a "told you so" line in these discussions, because nobody wants to appear foolish. By sympathizing with them about being deceived, I was able to bring up issues which I surely would not have been able to discuss unless I was able to reassure them that they had not been fools, just honest, good people who had been deceived.

Of course, there will always be some people who are resistant to reason, either because they actually agree with Bush, or because they are hardcore fundamentalists. It will take more than one approach to bring others to our side, but as The Magistrate has pointed out, with his usual eloquence, it is an achievable goal.

[radio4progressives]

28. it is always a good idea to avoid "i told you so" to the believers

though i never practice that here, because i expect people to be thinkers here.. "I told you so" - will not achieve our goals ..

it will only alienate people further..

there is truth to that here as well.. ;)

[immoderate]

13. Good ideas.

It is important to suspend vanity when trying to persuade others.

--IMM

[understandinglife]

16. "People do not like being lied to, and to be deceived into dangerous ...

... folly enrages people."

Yes, and then awakening to the reality that our dear America is now not only associated with torture and extreme rendition, but, even worse, that our leaders have participated in further deception regarding all of it ... yes, the rage, as we have already seen, spans partisan distinctions; it engulfs any true, law-respecting American.

Excellent post.

The "Nuremberg chalice" will need to be large, given the number of lips that will, eventually, be pressed against it by the courts.


Peace.

[Nederland]

18. The war is winding down

...at least from a US involvement perspective. US casualties continue to decline and the Iraqi army is now taking the brunt of the attacks. This is not Vietnam, the government we are supporting can and will deal with the insurgents. While the war may be an issue in 2006, I expect by 2008 it will be a non-issue.

[The Magistrate]

19. Do You Really Think So, Sir?

The problem in any case is not so much insugency as civil war, and the puppet we have erected is a mere faction in that, and riven in itself between competing factions. There will be no tidy end to this, and no end to it soon.

[Nederland]

21. Agree, I think

There will be no tidy end for Iraqis, but I believe there will be a tidy end for Bush. As the Iraqi army gets trained up to provide security, Bush will claim his job is done and get the hell out. Note this does not mean that there will be no civil war or that things are getting better for the average Iraqi, it simply means that the days of US presence in Iraq are numbered.

[The Magistrate]

23. It Would Surprise Me Very Much, Sir

If the U.S. garrisons departed anytime soon. The reptiles running this regime are rigid creatures, incapable of doing anything that could be viewed as weak or an addmission of error. The reasons they are in this venture are not wholly rational, and have a great deal to do with personal self image as "hard men" tougher than the average bear, an image quite false to fact, and their actions, accordinly, will be other then what rational examination of the circumstances would suggest as the best and proper course.

Of course, it is not unknown for me to surprised, even amazed, by the course events take....

[Nederland]

26. Sorry

I wasn't clear. I should not have said that the days of US presence in Iraq are numbered. I should have said that the troops number will soon decline significantly. I agree, all U.S. garrisons will not departed anytime soon. We will, just like Korea, keep troops in Iraq for decades to come. I believe that Bush is getting pressure from Republicans facing re-election to pull down the number of troops significantly so they can have something they can spin as progress.

[bemildred]

20. Sounds like about 1972 or 1973 to me. nt

[Nederland]

22. Yes

The difference being that the current Iraqi government is no South Vietnam. Unlike South Vietnam which quickly fell apart apart after the US left, the Shiites who (with the Kurds) control the Iraqi government are strong. They have the advantage of numbers and are intent on payback for 30 years of Sunni abuse.

[bemildred]

33. The difference, if any, remains to be seen.

Lord knows many would like to believe that it's going to be different, but Iraqi-ization looks much like Vietnamization to me, so far, and the course of events will show soon enough what the truth of the matter is.

[WilliamPitt]

47. Wow, wrong

US casualties are decreasing because we are using more airstrikes instead of kick-the-door-in tactics; the airstrikes also keep our troops off the road, so less of them are running into IEDs. That hardly qualifies as a winding-down; ask the Iraqis who got blown through their bedroom wall by a missile attack from an Apache helicopter. Oh, wait, you can't...

The "Iraqi army" is a mythical thing you seem to accept as actually existing. The Iraqi army is, in fact, a collection of sectarian-oriented militias controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the purpose of which is to carry violence to the Sunny minority population.

The kind of pie-in-the-sky mentality you evince here is still horribly prevalent within the American populace. I devoutly hope it does not continue to have a hold on popular opinion, for if it does, the dying will continue and the violence will increase. Likewise, I hope you are merely being optimistic in this assessment.

[roseBudd]

24. I have 2 flyers, 1 appeals to selfishness, 1 to IraqWar makes US less safe

Flyer files can be downloaded for printing and photocopying, including a mailing label THE WAR IS A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT for adhesive labels here:
http://bushcheated04.com/flyers/

[stevedeshazer]

25. If I may add,

The theme of incompetence cannot be overstressed, for that is the heart of the matter as far as the American people are concerned, in my view.

The sheer costs of this administration's incompetence in dollars, even aside from the lives and loss of international gravitas, cannot be stressed enough. No administration or Congress has been demonstrably more corrupt, and I believe most Americans know this, if not directly at least instinctively.

Stating clearly, repetitively and decisively that, in your words, "These pissants lied to us and sent our soldiers out to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq just so they could line their damn pockets with our tax dollars!" is the most direct appeal to the greater populace. I very much agree on this point.

Signs are abundant that Americans are planning to reject the current regressive government ideology, and will do so decisively this November. A huge black tide is rising and threatening the current power structure.

Once this ship of fools has been sunk for good, which it most surely is doing now, we may be justified in returning to our usual internecine squabbles, of which there are many. But it cannot be more clear than it is today that all clear-thinking Americans must reject the current regime without fail, and soon. Very soon.

We (collectively, the nation) are at a tipping point right now. We know which way the wind blows. The political weather is clearly changing. Spring is arriving, and along with it comes the fresh breeze of truth.


I'm off to admire the daffodils and flickers while contemplating the direction of the new America, yet plotting the best use of my time to make sure it all happens. We can and shall argue the finer points of democracy's post-revolution at a later time, but please note that I appreciate the jist of your post.

[Sparkly]

29. I always enjoy your posts, Magistrate.

I agree that people can come to the same conclusion for different reasons, and that some may well be selfish, racist, etc. One of the things Kerry frequently said on the campaign trail was something like, "We shouldn't be closing hospitals here and opening them in Iraq." At first I sort of winced, but then I realized this sort of thing was an appealing meme -- rightwingers, in particular, didn't seem to like the idea of spending money "ON Them." (It's been quite interesting to watch Republicans squirm in their efforts to cast themselves as great humanitarian nation-builders, after that became the "mission;" and on top of that, I don't think many in their base like that.)

The one thing I'm not sure I agree on is the pride in the "American way," when it comes to torture, for example. I think to too many people, what's "American" has become whatever they happen to believe. And they're scared into an odd sort of sports-team view of America -- we just root for our side and fight, fight, fight, roar, grrr, tough and beastly, whatever it takes!! (I'm surprised they haven't come up with a mascot yet.)

Btw, what did you think of General Clark's radio address this morning? ("Path to nowhere," "tragic incompetence" -- seems in line with what you're saying.)

[H2O Man]

30. Well said.

A consequence, to be sure, of being well thought out. Thank you for this.

[The Magistrate]

34. Thank You, Sir!

[Blue_Tires]

31. kicked/recommended

well spoken as always, sir

[Festivito]

32. Stopping deferments ended Vietnam. We just need to know HOW to leave Iraq.

Stopping deferments meant the RWers were about to be forced into participation. They caved. That's why they started to support getting out of Vietnam, i.e. being on the side of the anti-war left. Deferments woke Americans who were not so much RW as they were lulled to sleep.

SS awoke Americans to Bush's lies. Schaivo and Katrina solidified the new belief. Iraq is not believed. Fine.

People just don't know HOW we should leave.

[pinto]

35. Well said.

[AuntiBush]

36. I Want to Thank You

for your much thought-out, and very helpful post. I hope you don't mind if I save a copy, for talking-points w/neighbors, etc. Because you are right. Though the debate is not heartwarming, per se, it is how others might reconsider, listen and agree.

Thank you so much. Surely you put a lot of time and effort in helping us frame the debate.

"These pissants lied to us and sent our soldiers out to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq just so they could line their damn pockets with our tax dollars!" :kick:

[The Magistrate]

37. Thank You Very Much, Ma'am!

That was really pleasant to read, and I appreciate it greatly.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[fooj]

38. Wise words...

The line that will gain the greatest and widest support is one that appeals to the people's affection for and pride in their country.

Peace.

[Jim Sagle]

39. The nickel version might be phrased: Ed Schultz Si, Mike Malloy No.

As much as I'd like it the other way around.

[The Magistrate]

40. Fair Enough, My Friend

My price will remain, though, considerably above a nickle....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Jim Sagle]

46. I won't haggle.

:-)

[stickdog]

41. Yes, when it comes to stopping this idiocy, "third way" thinking

may be helpful.

[The Magistrate]

42. A Pleasure To Be In Agreement With You, Sir!

[sandnsea]

43. Generally, I agree

The one problem is that the "not fighting to win it" theory of Vietnam. That phony line has ended up being the truth of Vietnam to far too many people, it came back to bite us in the last election as people associated Kerry with those wobbly-kneed politicians who didn't have what it took to go in and just win the damned thing. In my life I have run into far more men who say that then say it was a war we didn't belong in. I think it's part of what fueled this war and makes it difficult for some to change their position; they want a sort of redemption, to win this one, by gawd. It's a dangerous thing letting a fallacy replace truth for politicial expediency. I suppose it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world if my children believed this war was just to line some rich bastard's pockets; but the truth is far more insidious and important. It goes back to Vietnam and "America turning", and stopping military intervention for the pure purpose of controlling commerce, not just the immediate money grab. If we don't start telling the truth about that, these wars will never end.

[The Magistrate]

53. My Reference To That Line, Ma'am

Was not meant to endorse it as true, only to indicate that, though it is often forgotten in left circles, it was a line widely believed and forcefully expressed in rightist circles at the time. They say that "Misanthropy is how the Devil falls in love," and "If we ain't gonna fight to win, get the Hell out" is how the right expresses disenchantment with a war....

[Joe Fields]

44. As I see it....

There is little to no hope in ending the war before the end of this current administration. It is a pipe dream.

Which is why I heavily favor impeachment. My reasons for impeachment, coincidentally reflect reasons that you stated for a campaign to bring an end to the war.

I have been arguing for a long time now that Bush's incompetent and corrupt leadership should resonate with the general poulace. I believe his poll numbers reflect the growing dissatisfaction among members of his own party. This has not yet translated into unified action, which frankly baffles me.We should never spill the blood of our own troops in a manner that doesn't direcly reflect a just response to immediate threat to the security of our nation or the world. Sadaam Hussein just didn't cut the mustard in this regard. Questionable reasons to go to war, poor planning and no exit strategy.

It is understandable, to a degree, the reticence of people who back the president to not want to admit that they were poor judges of character; that they had been completely duped. People just don't want to admit that to themselves, let alone to others. But the time is overdue for people to come to terms with their mistaken allegiance to this most un-American of Americans.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. A false premise, sandnsea. The last election was a landslide

victory for the Dems.

Indeed, if I may say so, The Magistrate's truly magisterial overview, is now useful for understanding, consolidation and still further growth, so that the Republicans will need to form another party.

Likewise, your point about their purpose of "controlling commerce, not just the immediate money-grab" as being the true rationale for the cessation of the Vietnam war" does not, imo, to be well-founded. Indeed, the latter was their only means of getting the public onside. "They commies'll take over." The disaffection largely ensued from the lack of success, due to the impossibility of winning that kind of war. Of course, were it to have succeeded, the commercial prospects over there for American Big Business would have improved significantly. But these people are endemic short-termists; it's the very nature of Big Business.

There seems no reason why the immediate profiteering should not develop at the war's end into an imperial possession, however covert. Why do you see your point about this ensuing commercial development as the key? If there is a hot-key, to play a little on words, it is that adduced by the Magistrate. At a time of great crisis, future needs need to be put on the back-burner. People are worried about the here and now; long-term policy can wait. It's not the same as Bush's kind of policy of "in the long term we're all dead."

[KittyWampus]

45. So it boils down to Marketing & using Emotion to control the Masses

rather then depending on Intellectual Debate?

If so, that certainly takes into account human nature. Many DU'ers seem either oblivous to or deeply resentful of the fact that People, as a group, are moved by Emotion more then Intellect.

The mover of masses deals less with Intellect then with Emotion.

[im10ashus]

48. Great post!!!

I am bookmarking for later. But let me just say, just like any other criminal act, you must be going after the one's in charge. Until they remove this corrupt administration, nothing is attainable, save the lining of many pockets.

K&R!

:kick:

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Well said, Sir

This war has been so mishandled so many different ways and there are many reasons to oppose it. No one has to pick just one.

• The war was dishonestly conceived. Saddam was a paper tiger and policymakers in the Bush regime knew it. Dick Cheney and Scooter Libber were down in Langley strong-arming CIA analysts into saying what they wanted the public to believe and Doug Feith was in the Pentagon cherry picking intelligence that supported the case for war, editing the ambiguity out of inconclusive intelligence and discarding any information that contradicted the case for war. Did the policymakers really have any confidence in their case for war? They didn't act like it. Memoranda from the British government has surfaced proving that facts were "fixed" (i.e., fabricated) around a pre-determined policy and that Bush and Blair plotted to go to war without a UN resolution authorizing force and knew that their case for war was "weak". In fact, every pre-war assertion made about the threat Saddam posed to any one has been proved wrong.
• The war was colonial in nature. When US troops entered Baghdad, they secured the Oil Ministry and allowed hospitals to be looted. Is that really how a war to liberate the Iraqi people rather than seize Iraq's natural wealth is to be fought? For months after Baghdad fell, Iraq was governed by an American administrator who decreed laws concerning trade and social institutions that no Iraqi legislation can alter.
• The war was poorly planned. It was easy enough, but would have been much easier by following the Powell Doctrine and going in with overwhelming force rather than fight Rumsfeld's war on the economy plan.
• The reconstruction effort is totally corrupt. Dick Cheney arranged for Halliburton, of which he was once CEO, to be granted no-bod contracts; Halliburton has since proceded to fleece the US taxpayers with overcharges and sloppy service. Delivery of electrical power and drinking water is still unreliable, three years after the invasion. Streets are not safe either from insurgents or criminal gangs.
• There is nothing US troops can do to prevent civil war. It is quite possible that had Saddam passed from the scene by natural causes, the Shia would have made a move for power, the Baathists would have attempted to hang onto power, Sunnis not aligned with Baathist would have made a bid of their own and international terrorists would have taken advantage of the chaos to set up shop in Iraq. With US troops in Iraq, all we have is a variation on that theme. Didn't the best and brightest among the neoconservatives contemplate this? Unfortunately, not every problem can be fixed by sending in the Marines.
• The occupation of Iraq stretches the ability the US military to fight al Qaida or other genuine threats. The occupation does not make the US and its allies safe from terrorists. Since terrorists had little leeway in pre-Bush Iraq, there is no way that invading could have possibly have made the world safer from them. Instead, al Qaida and the Taliban regrouped in Afghanistan and terrorists have struck in Riyadh, Istanbul, Bali, Madrid and London. While Iran threatens to build nuclear weapons, it is questionable whether the US can prevent it by force, should that be necessary.

Most disturbing is the attack on American civil liberties which Mr. Bush and his lieutenants claim is "necessary" to fight terror. To this end, Mr. Bush claims: the authority to order the torture of combat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and has set up a worldwide network of gulags for this purpose; the authority to establish military tribunals which fail to guarantee the accused the right to challenge evidence against him or to cross examine witnesses; the authority to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant; there was open talk in the Justice Department and legislation actually drafted that would give the President or one of his cabinet officers the right to strip any citizen of his rights as a citizen and even his citizenship by declaring him an enemy combatant.

[The Magistrate]

61. An Excellent Outline, My Friend

Every one of yiour points is true, and once people have begun to listen, can be pressed readily and effectively. In discussion with persons who once supported the enterprise and are wavering towards our view, the points that seem most worth stressing are your last two, that this futile venture makes the U.S. impotemt against real threats, and that the presence of U.S. soldiers does nothing but garnish the civil war begun there.

The point most important over-all is certainly your very last one, namely the extra-constitutional character of givernment that has crept upon us over the last several years. It is beyond me how any American patriot, how any American who cherishes Liberty and is devoted to our system of government, from whatever point on the political spectrum they anchor their fealty to our land, could possibly acquiesce, let alone support, developments and practices that subvert the Constitution and cannot be described as anything other than the classic definition of Tyranny, namely the illegal siezure of power in a democratic order.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

51. The Single-Minded Selling Proposition, and the Promise

Scientists view the world in scientific terms; clergymen view it in religious terms. I tend to view the world in marketing terms, because so much in life is marketing - persuading people to part with something of value in exchange for a promise. Science, religion, philosophy, psychology and more all play a role in marketing, but it's marketing itself that asks the key questions that get the ball rolling:

Who are we talking to? The target audience

What are we trying to tell them? The promise; the end benefit

Why should they believe us? The support; the reason to believe; the single-minded selling proposition

What action do we want them to take as a result? To try a new brand; to increase usage of a brand; to maintain brand loyalty; to switch loyalty from one brand to another

Most people think that advertisers are in the business of selling products and services, but they don't. Not any more. Over the last 25 years the rising cost of media, the proliferation of media outlets, and the global expansion of consumer markets have driven marketers to find new ways to identify and reach potential consumers. Segmenting them by traditional demographics - age, gender, income, household size - neither narrows the target audience sufficiently nor defines it sharply enough to help develop an effective, cost-efficient selling message. As a result, marketing research focuses on the beliefs that consumers hold and how those beliefs are reflected in the way they live to help advertisers identify both current and potential customers.

In short, marketers no longer sell goods and services. They sell lifestyles as defined by brands.

Your lifestyle indicates your potential to buy the brand. The brand reinforces your chosen lifestyle, whether it's really the life you lead or want others to think you lead. In every possible category there are brands designed to appeal to every possible lifestyle. Think you're immune to lifestyle marketing? Savvy brands have identified your anti-marketing lifestyle and know how to market to it. The only way out is to opt out of a category completely - e.g. cell phones, a category that (so far) my lifestyle has gotten along without.

-------------------------------------

That basic overview is preamble to examining your post in marketing terms and showing how you answer the four basic questions to create a strategy for Democratic victory in 06 and maybe 08.

Who are we talking to?

- people who, if asked today by a pollster for their opinion, would say that they do not support the war and want it ended
- who have tremendous affection for...and pride in their country
- would be enraged and offended by statements that torture of prisoners is what the U.S. always does, and simply demonstrates again the evil nature of the United States because their strong identification with the country leads them to take these statements personally
- can be reached by appealing to their native interests and patriotism
- do not like incompetence and incompetents, and do not want to associate themselves with that
- view incompetence in leaders as a tremendous and harmful failing
- are working people...(who) deeply abhor and despise...money corruption and profiteering

This is a superb definition of the target audience. You do not define them as Christians, rightists, Southerners, conservatives or Republicans. These groups are subsets of our target, but they do not make up the whole of patriotic, working class people, just as not all Democrats were anti-war at the start of the invasion, and not all Christians are fundamentalists. Your definition of the target audience helps Democrats reclaim patriotism and pride in country. It is an inclusive definition that welcomes people into our fold - including those people who have opted out of the political category by not voting. It acknowledges and rewards the audience without judgement (and it certainly does not degrade them with terms like "sheeple," one of the most elitist, divisive words I have ever heard).


What are we trying to tell them?

The promise is the weakest part of the strategy you have laid out. It is implicit in your essay but that isn't good enough. The end benefit to ending the war and voting Democratic has to be clear, concise, believable and unique.

The promise is usually stated in the tag line in either a literal way like "Built to Last" or an evocative way like "Just Do It." John Kerry's 2004 promise was "We Can Do Better," designed to encompass the handling of the Iraq War as well as economic issues back home.

What is the promise of the strategy you describe? Many here like "Support Our Troops - Bring Them Home" but that is not really the theme of this strategy. It doesn't speak to the greed and incompetence of the criminals in office or the anti-Americanism of their crimes.

My suggestion? A concept worded along these lines:

Let's Rebuild THIS Country First

This concept communicates an array of end benefits:

A change of guard; an appeal to patriotism; kicking out the thieves (without having to say that Dems won't steal, which a lot of cynics would dismiss); strengthening our economy, our infrastructure, our schools, our families, and our international reputation, restoring us to the Great America that lives in our memories, if not our actual history. It's believable because it draws on Democratic heritage - the New Deal also rebuilt our country after a catastrophic fall. It's unique because the GOP can't say it - if they tried it would beg the question why, with complete control of the government, they have done the complete opposite. It may be a little xenophobic, but I don't mind.


Why should they believe us?

These pissants lied to us and sent our soldiers out to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq just so they could line their damn pockets with our tax dollars!

What more can be said? It's believable, fiery, succinct, written in real language. If you said it in a strategy meeting, everyone would fall silent at its beauty till someone lept up and wrote it on the Big Pad so people could pick it apart. ("'Pissants'? Is that too much? What about 'creeps'?") But in the end they wouldn't be able to change a word. As a single-minded selling proposition for this target audience, it's brill.

What action do we want them to take as a result?

- get the greatest possible number of people on board with the idea of ending the matter quickly
- move them to agree, and agree passionately and with a vocabulary of demand, with the right course of action
- persuade the greatest possible number of people to be moved to despise the torturers and the leaders that promote torture, and be eager to take political action against them at the ballot box

Yep. Not just agree but act, by exchanging their votes for the promise of a better country.

----------

So concludes my marketing analysis of your strategy. (Ha ha, my post is longer than yours! That's a first.)

But all I've done is shown why it can work. It's your keen insights about people and politics that have created the right message for the people we need to reach.

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

52. "Let's Rebuild THIS Country First!"

That is a marvelous slogan, my Dear! Thank you so much for your analysis of my piece. I have learned a tremendous amount from you about the shaping and communication of a political line. You are indeed Mistress of the dark arts of marketing....

[Joe Fields]

57. I will obey your advice. It is worthy of printing and keeping!

[Imagevision]

54. And your reply to the fact the VP. was the former CEO of Halliburton?

while this president is forcasted to hit a spending bill in the trillions for his desire to spread democracy? -- whatever happened to getting OBL while Bush has clearly stated he no longer is interested in finding the elusive one he allowed free in tora-bora...

[The Magistrate]

56. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

What do you mean, what is my "reply to the fact the VP. was the former CEO of Halliburton?"

[Imagevision]

55. People should remain focused and rally around the Bush impeachment

talk/hearings going on about the country.

[The Straight Story]

58. Well let me ask this:

Why did clinton and gore feel the same things about Saddam?

I ask this because I am wondering about a larger 'game' above and beyond bush and crew. Clinton/Gore felt saddam was a real threat to us and needed removed, as did bush. What is behind all this???

I get a feeling it is deeper, and that is more scary than bush alone to me. Presidents come and go, but some things stay the same...

[The Magistrate]

60. They Did Not, Sir

Had they felt the same, they would have acted the same. What they did was act to contain Hussein, which was a proper and successful policy. Indeed, until the present regime, it was the policy of containment, and of playing radical Iran and fascist Iraq off against one another, that remained the same, whatever the administration, and it remained the same because it was the soundest calculation of what would best serve U.S. interests in the region.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[entanglement]

59. As a rule, deficiencies trump virtues in consistently predicting human

behavior and Americans are no exception to this rule. Since most people already believe in the myth of infallible America, why not use that belief to our advantage? I admit there is something appealing about the idea :)