How Democrats Should Talk About Iraq
Commentary printed in The Washington
Post, October 1, 2003
By Jim Marshall
Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23
My first trip to a combat zone occurred
in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly
trained Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer
for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way out of
step with my Ivy League colleagues.
Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back.
But this time it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional
colleagues, political leaders and activists who are carelessly using
words and phrases such as "quagmire," "our failure
in Iraq," "this is just another Vietnam," or "the
Bush administration has no plan."
I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve
for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic
Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's
version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately
dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition
forces. Some will attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy,
but a more plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news
media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local news
coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and progress in
their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different.
Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the
United States is a serious problem for coalition forces because it
discourages Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or
failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American soldiers.
As one example, coalition forces are now discovering nearly 50 percent
of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess how they discover
the rest.
We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence,
we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility
for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991
Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned
them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony
to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians
to live up to their commitments.
For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is
critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision
that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite
dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's
regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture
from America -- literally.
Many in Washington view the contest for the
presidency and control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external
costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively
celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad for the opposition.
But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort.
Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external
cost.
It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis
will step forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible
Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It
is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably
self-fulfilling.
Democratic candidates for the presidency
should repeatedly hammer home their support, if elected, for helping
the Iraqi people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to
contend that he or she is a better choice for securing victory in
Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken not to dwell
on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans, with
help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves.
Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic
presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their
own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs
and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition
effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election.
Finally, no better signal of our commitment
to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly
approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request
for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course
no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads
to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something
that could immeasurably improve our future national security.
The writer is a Democratic representative
from Georgia.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
