How To Talk About Iraq

I watched Meet the Press this morning and was thoroughly impressed by the job Jim Webb did in his debate with Lindsey Graham. The subject was Iraq, and Webb just mopped the floor with Graham. After years of watching Democratic politicians hem and haw on Iraq, Webb is a real breath of fresh air. He's passionate, he's not afraid to interrupt when the situation calls for it, and he exudes the sort of measured anger that a debate on this topic demands. I hope every Democrat watched Meet the Press today and took notes (for those of you who missed it, Crooks and Liars has video of some of the key exchanges; the full transcript is here).

But it was more than just Webb's tone. On a substantive level, Webb did an excellent job pushing back against every major GOP talking point and framing the issues in a constructive way.

As all good debaters are taught to do, Webb made his most important point first.
When Tim Russert asked him whether he was trying to "run the war," Webb responded:

No, I don’t think that there is a war, to start off with. I think that this has been a botched occupation. It’s been going on for four years after the purely military part of it was done. This administration has failed in terms of bringing the right diplomatic formula to the table. We—all of the things that people like myself were predicting would happen if we went into Iraq are the—exactly the sorts of things that the president and the small group of people who have sort of rallied around him are saying will happen if we leave. We were saying that Iran would be empowered, we were saying that international terrorism would be empowered, we were saying that the reputation of the United States would be diminished around the world, and we were saying the region would become more unstable. So we’ve reached the point, and I see, with what Senator Warner and Senator Lugar have introduced, that there’s a good, strong feeling among the Republicans as well, we’ve reached the point where we have to come together as a Congress and attempt to bring some order into this.

Webb, is absolutely right. It's not at all helpful to refer to this as the Iraq War (and I confess I've been as guilty of this as anyone). This is an occupation, a bloody one, to be sure, but an occupation nonetheless. As Mark Kleiman noted the other day:

[David] Brooks uses the word war, as almost everyone does, and I think it's a big mistake. It's an occupation, and has none of the defining qualities of a war, especially lacking an enemy who can be defeated and accept our will, or who can defeat us and form the agreements that comprise an armistice or treaty. The word also enables the ridiculous Bushian prattle about victory and success.

And the obnoxious notion that to leave is to "surrender." Occupations just end. There's no surrender or victory. They end when the occupying force decides that occupying the territory in question in no longer in its best interest. Did Israel surrender to Hezbollah when it withdrew from Southern Lebanon? It is imperative that the Democrats follow Webb's lead and start talking about ending the occupation. This is not only a more accurate way of describing the situation, but it will help build the political consensus necessary to actually do something constructive.

In response to Senator Graham's claim that we need to stay in Iraq to defeat al Qaeda, Webb also answered perfectly:

You know, he says, al-Qaeda has come to Iraq. That is true. There is no greater recruiting tool for Iraq—for, for al-Qaeda than the United States being in Iraq.

He then went on to make this key point:

And with respect to al-Qaeda, quite frankly, al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq to try to destroy a democracy. That’s a very, very flimsy democracy there. We all recognize that. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because the United States was in Iraq, and the people in al-Anbar are not aligning themselves with the United States. It’s “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” This hasn’t been the Iraqi military, the national military that’s been taking out al-Qaeda. It’s been a redneck justice. It’s been these sectarian groups out there who don’t like al-Qaeda. And if we leave, they still will not like al-Qaeda.

That's an important point, one I rarely see Democrats make.

When asked the most difficult question that anyone in favor of withdrawal can be asked, i.e., what if everything goes to hell when we leave, I think Webb gave the honest, accurate answer:

I think they’re going to have problems in Iraq whenever we leave. They have had problems in Iraq for 2,000 years. The question is the circumstances under which we leave, and that’s what we have to work on. And that’s what the people who’ve basically circled their wagons around this administration, rather than moving toward the future like, like, for instance, Senator Warner and Senator Lugar are trying to do, are missing the boat.

Indeed. The bottom line is that there is no reason to think we are capable of eliminating the underlying fault lines in Iraq. Whenever we leave, those forces are going to be unleashed, to whatever end. All we can do is delay that outcome, and at enormous cost in terms of dollars and American lives.

In response to Graham's assertion "Iran is killing Americans and trying to destabilize this government," Webb instantly responded:

So are Saudis, Senator Graham. So are Saudis, because that’s what the region is.

This is also a point that is not made often enough by Democrats. It is not at all surprising that Iranians are assisting Shia militants in Iraq. The Saudis are doing the same thing for Sunni militants. If there's a proxy war in Iraq, it's not between the U.S. and Iran, it's between Iran and Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. And we're caught in the middle. The primary fault line in Iraq is between the Sunnis and the Shia. Naturally, the countries that border Iraq, like Shia-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, have an interest in who eventually controls Iraq. This was an utterly predictable consequence of invading Iraq.

Webb was also quick call Graham on his cake-and-eat-it-too approach to "the surge." Like the Bush administration, Graham tried to, on the one hand, claim that the surge is a huge success and has already accomplished a great deal and, on the other hand, claim that the surge only started two weeks ago. Webb was having none of that and pointed out how incoherent it was.

Finally, in perhaps the highlight of the debate, Webb angrily called out Graham for putting his "political views into the mouths of soldiers." Graham asked why soldiers would be re-enlisting if they didn't agree with him. Webb responded:

They do it for—they do it because they love their country, because they have a tradition, and it is the responsibility of our national leaders to make sure that they are used properly.

To which Graham replied:

Have you been to Iraq and—have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?

At this point, it must have been awfully tempting for Webb to make the obvious point that his own son is currently serving in Iraq. But he didn't. Instead, he just pointed out the absurdity of these congressional visits:

You know, you haven’t been to Iraq. . . . you go see the dog and pony shows. . . . you got to look at the polls, Lindsey, instead of the seven or eight people they bring in line when you make your congressional visit.

Graham was somewhat taken aback by that and looked fluster for the remainder of the debate.

Come to think of it, rather than having other Democrats try to emulate Webb, I think I'd rather just have Webb himself do all future debates like this. After seeing Graham get his ass handed to him today, I don't think too many Republicans are going to volunteer for that job.