Democrats on Cue: "We Were Misled about Iraq."
The apparent foreign policy talking points of the Democratic Party: (reposted from August)
Who needs principles when you've got polling?
Who needs principles when you've got polling?
- Support the war and make compelling cases for use of force provided it’s popular.
- Articulating threats is risky politically. Responding to realized threats is not.
- Support military conflict provided it's winnable quickly.
- Rush to defend any peoples in danger provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
- Rush to defend any strategic US interests provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
- Use caring, empathetic language for those oppressed or killed behind iron curtains. This placebo approach can be couched in soaring rhetoric to persuade others of sincerity and earnest intents - very safe politically.
- The UN is the perfect forum for the above. Voting and debate on suffering plays well in US and world media.
- Remain keenly aware that Americans do not care about suffering they do not see (i.e. pre-invasion Iraq).
- Americans care a great deal about suffering they do see on TV (i.e. post-invasion Iraq) and will hold US forces as responsible for violence they perceive as new.
- Express vague, lofty concerns throughout beginning of conflict – politically safe and does not preclude you from claiming victory as your own or failure as someone else’s.
- Stand proudly behind any quick victory pointing to original support.
- Distance yourself from any sudden failures pointing to your original concerns.
- Protracted battle requiring sacrifice of blood or political capital is not advised - better to suffer a short, sharp defeat and exit theatre quickly.
- Short battle failures can be dismissed as the failure of subordinates.
- Most short battle failures will be forgotten as quickly as the next scandal or missing teen story.
- Short battle failures may even be termed successes should original objective have not been clarified in detail.
- Do not run the risk of articulating a vision. Vision may run afoul of changing public opinion and is considered retrograde by media.
- Conversely, as public support wanes, refer to the pre-war status quo as peaceful and not a threat.
- Do not address specific pre-war threats to Iraqi citizens, Americans, regional neighbors, or Israel. We do not believe public is informed enough to sustain attention on these topics.
- The moment Europe or the electorate begins to fatigue on realities of armed conflict; distance yourself from our original support reiterating how you were misled.
- If a clear scapegoat is available, place blame quickly. Use polling data to ascertain “jumping off point” and begin citing lies disseminated by your political opponents to start an unjust war.
- When questioned about original support for conflict, explain original support as naïve trust.
- At every opportunity, decry abuses of your trust and the American People’s trust.
- At every opportunity, decry missed opportunities to build non-existent coalitions.
- As opinion polls dip below 50%, deploy base to advocate retreat and silence any supporters of war effort.
- If immediate retreat is not feasible, demand artificial timelines, politically motivated timetables, and withdraw based upon non-tactical considerations.
- Refer to enemy prisoners of war as "detainees." This frames their capture as a law enforcement matter and suggests entitlement to attorneys and protections of US courts.
- Should situation continue to deteriorate, claim moral high ground by being first to demand an end to unjust war.
- Should situation improve, silence retreat advocates. Claim credit for good news items citing your original support.
- Qualify success or failure daily based upon media reported body counts.
- Be advised that major media will report primarily on the operational efficiency of the enemy (car bombings, suicide attacks, kidnappings, beheadings, etc…) and their death tolls.
- Media will not report on successful American raids, attacks prevented, diplomatic successes, “hearts and minds” activities, school openings, hospitals opening, infrastructure improvements, etc… Reporting American activities in positive light may jeopardize objective observer status.
- Use restraint when voicing support for American forces or reciting good news items seen online or in alternative media sources. This will be perceived by many in our base as cheerleading and is dangerous politically – not advised within one year of election.