Memo to Democrats: 2006 is Not 2002

By Mimikatz

As the articles proliferate about the Bush Administration's possible strikes on Iran, ratcheting up the danger posed by Iran, there is concern that Bush may be serious in his delusional belief that this is the way to ensure his legacy as a savior of the US's way of life.  There is also concern that this may simply be a Rovian tactic to put the Democrats on the defensive before the 2006 midterms--a replay of the run-up to the Iraq War.  But this time, in order not to alienate the anti-war base, the Democrats would have to eschew the use of nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran, perhaps question the premise of a preemptive strike on Iran at all, and then the GOP can paint them as wimps and cowards unwilling to do what it takes to protect American security, securing the Congress for another two years and protecting Bush from further investigations.

But as the saying goes, you can't step into the same river twice.  This is 2006, not 2002, and things are very different now.  Public attitudes have turned, not just on the Iraq War, but on Bush himself, with his approval ratings hitting new lows in several new polls.  Bush's credibility has been seriously damaged by the revelations that he approved, even if he did not orchestrate, the selective leaking of classified intelligence that supported the case for war while suppressing information that questioned that case.  This, in turn, may make both the press and the public less likely to follow the 2002 playbook, and more willing to question the Administration's pronouncements.  In addition, it gives the Democrats the opportunity to base their Iran policy on facts and principles, and not on the fear of being labelled as wimps.

Foreign Affairs has a fascinating new article on some of these changing attitudes.  Most intriguing are the findings that (1) support for both the Iraq War and the spreading of democracy as a foreign policy objective are declining fastest among Republicans and churchgoers, and (2) the public is becoming increasingly concerned about dependence on foreign oil and its consequences.  These attitudes,  coupled with evidence that Bush's popularity correlates heavily (and inversely) with the price of gasoline, ought to give everyone in this debate pause, and in that pause to contemplate with clear vision the very serious consequences of a strike on Iran.

The Foreign Affairs article is discussed in a post at Donkey Rising, but it is worth reading the whole article, by Daniel Yankelovitch.  The recently taken (Janaury) poll is a follow-up to one taken in June, 2005.  The shifts in opinion on the Iraq War are summarized as follows:

"Overall, the public's confidence in U.S. Foreign policy has drifted downward since the first survey. On no issue did the government's policy receive an improved rating from the public in January's survey, and on a few the ratings changed for the worse. The public has become less confident in Washington's ability to achieve its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, hunt down terrorists, protect U.S. borders, and safeguard U.S. jobs. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they think that U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track (compared to 37 percent who think the opposite), and 51 percent said they are disappointed by the country's relations with other countries (compared to 42 percent who are proud of them).

"As for the goal of spreading democracy to other countries, only 20 percent of respondents identified it as "very important" -- the lowest support noted for any goal asked about in the survey. Even among Republicans, only three out of ten favored pursuing it strongly. In fact, most of the erosion in confidence in the policy of spreading democracy abroad has occurred among Republicans, especially the more religious wing of the party. People who frequently attend religious services have been among the most ardent supporters of the government's policies, but one of the recent survey's most striking findings is that although these people continue to maintain a high level of trust in the president and his administration, their support for the government's Iraq policy and for the policy of exporting democracy has cooled."

These findings seem to undercut the notion (explored at length in Kevin Phillips' new book American Theocracy) that base support for Bush's policies in the Middle East would not waver because it is bound up in a view of biblical inerrancy that sees the "end times" as coming.  Moreover, they suggest that a principled opposition to starting a third war before the two already under way have been resolved would not alienate nearly as many people as pundits and would-be strategists have assumed.

But the most interesting finding is the increased salience in the public mind of the issue of dependence on foreign oil.  Here Yankelovich says:

"The war in Iraq, already at the tipping point in mid-2005, remains the primary foreign policy issue on which public pressure continues to mount. Although illegal immigration and outsourcing moved closer to the tipping point in the January 2006 poll, neither has actually reached it. In contrast, the public's concern over U.S. relations with the Muslim world moved slightly away from the tipping point. And the issue of energy dependence, which had ranked far down the list, leapfrogged ahead to move into tipping-point territory.

"No change is more striking than that relating to the public's opinion of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Americans have grown much more worried that problems abroad may affect the price of oil. The proportion of those who said they "worry a lot" about this occurring has increased from 42 percent to 55 percent. Nearly nine out of ten Americans asked were worried about the problem -- putting oil dependence at the top of our 18-issue "worry scale." Virtually all Americans surveyed (90 percent) said they see the United States' lack of energy independence as jeopardizing the country's security, 88 percent said they believe that problems abroad could endanger the United States' supply of oil and so raise prices for U.S. consumers, and 85 percent said they believe that the U.S. government would be capable of doing something about the problem if it tried. This last belief may be the reason that only 20 percent of those surveyed gave the government an A or a B on this issue; three-quarters assigned the government's performance a C, a D, or an F.

"The oil-dependency issue now meets all the criteria for having reached the tipping point: an overwhelming majority expresses concern about the issue, the intensity of the public's unease has reached significant levels, and the public believes the government is capable of addressing the issue far more effectively than it has until now. Should the price of gasoline drop over the coming months, this issue may temporarily lose some of its political weight. But with supplies of oil tight and geopolitical tensions high, public pressure is likely to grow."  (My emphases.)

As we have discussed, apart from appalling loss of life, increased terrorism and damage to our standing in the rest of the world, one very likely consequence of a strike on Iran is disruptions in the flow and price of oil, as a result of design, sabotage or simple uncertainty.  Already some commentators have placed the "Iran premium" in the current price of oil at $10 a barrel.  Oil prices (and the prices of oil and oil-related stocks) were up again this morning after the spate of articles over the weekend on the possibility of an Iran strike.  Serious disruptions would likely drive the price to $100 a barrel.

If it is true as Kevin Phillips and others have asserted that the"real" motive for the Iraq War was a desire to control Iraq's oil reserves, increase production and lower the price of oil to beak OPEC, it appears to have been an even bigger miscalculation than previously appreciated, since the price of oil has now tripled since the end of 2002.  (Of course the profits of oil and oil-related companies are at record levels too.)  There is noi reason to think that compounding that error would have a different result

Our intelligence on Iran is much too uncertain to be the basis of a preemptive strike (apart form the morality of such a move).  A strike on Iran is not likely to make us safer, because it most surely increase the likelihood of terrorist strikes by Hezbullah and other allies of Iran, as well as other forms of retaliation.  It would alienate the rest of the world.  In addition, it is not likely to preserve our "way of life" but to severely disrupt it.  By basing opposition to strikes (nuclear or otherwise) on these points, and coupling it with a strategy for improving energy efficiency to reduce oil dependence,  Democrats will likely stike a receptive chord in a public now growing weary of war and the consequences of dependence on foreign oil.

Comments

[Meteor Blades]

Perhaps those of us who argued - to much hissing and booing even from many alleged liberals - in 2002 and early 2003 that there should be "No Blood of Oil" should have argued that the war would produce "No Oil for Blood." It seems that when the SUV ox is gored, a certain segment of the American people will speak in opposition.

[Meteor Blades]

...obviously, I meant "No Blood for Oil" ...

[Mimikatz]

After I wrote this post I read Meteor Blades' question what it would take to get Americans to oppose war with Iran. What about $5 a gallon gasoline and mortgage foreclosures?

The Dems should not fall into the trap of feeling they have to support another round of Bush insanity. Things are different, and they ought to be poll-driven, if not astute, enough to realize that. And this time around, those warning of dire consequences need only point to the gas pump and interest rates as proof to make these points.

[Steve]

If taking the option of a preemptive nuclear strike off the table is enough to get one branded as "weak on national security," then I don't really see what the Democrats could ever do to avoid that label. I'd be content to see them take that position, though, and let the Republicans twist in the wind as they struggle to choose between taking the exact same position and appearing batshit insane.

[orionATL]

i don't think democrats have to focus on the rightness or wrongeness of destroying iran's nuclear capabliity.

focus instead on this :

any military attack on iran in the next year will be

A NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER.

no need for months of public chat about bomb/no bomb, invade/no invade, nuclear bomb/no nuclear bomb.

if i was a democratic politician or political advisor,

i would be fast out the gate with this soundbite:

ANOTHER BUSH-LED NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER

is looming.

emphasize bush's history with these big decisions - he doesn't know what he's doing.

emphasize that his national security "team" had their heads up their coat closets on iraq.

why would iran be any different?

set the terms of the public discussion early

like RIGHTR NOW!

to whit:

-- bush is trying to influence the elections (anybody recall those endless moronic media/ republican pol discussions about "wag the dog" during clinton's small foreign adventures.

and

what's the hurry?

iran does not have the bomb now and won't have it before november, 2006. (in fact, it may take iran a decade to develop a useable weapon.)

and just developing a weapon isn't enough.

you've got to have have a reliable delivery method. you can't just send one of these thing u.p.s.

recommendation to timid, reactive demo pols:

pre-emptive verbal strike against rove-bush-mehlman:

"another BUSH-LED

NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER

is headin' our way.

only the republicans in congress won't do anything to stop it.

[emptywheel]

Great post, Mimikatz.

Interesting, btw. Everyone here thinks Bush is the shit (I've agreed with the main client here that we'll drink beers at the end of the week so he can use the language he was thinking when he first asked me about politics). And, unfortunately, they say people here believe that Americans support Bush and everything he does.

But there is almost no concern about oil here. Which, in a place with rolling blackouts (and its summer, so there's the question of air conditioning), is really surprising.

[bob mcmanus]

Darn, this post was a comfort and relief. I feel much better. Now, excuse me, I have read some Thucydides about the Syracuse Expedition.

If Bush goes for it, it will be a learnng experience for us all.

[Mimikatz]

Laura Rozen quotes at length from the (only privately available) Nelson Report, substantiating the notion that the military is very, very concerned that Bush and his fantasists will talk themselves into war with Iran. (And I am one of those who believes that any strike against a sovereign nation is an act of war.) We'll do our part to try to force that debate on consequences.

This quote from Lt. General Gregory Newbold pretty well sums it up:

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." (My emphasis.)

[bob mcmanus]

"Paul Krugman: If we got a news flash tonight saying that bombs are dropping on Iran, do you have any confidence that leading figures in politics and the media would have the courage to condemn the president's action and question his motives? I don't. There would be a chorus of people — which would surely include just about every prominent Republican, plus Joe Lieberman and the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal — praising the president and denouncing anyone who raises questions for undermining the commander-in-chief in a time of war. The public might nonetheless turn on the administration, but I wouldn't count on it." Thanks to Mark Thoma at The Economist's View

Ok, folks, your Dem leadership will not be willing, while the country is engaged in a wide foreign war and economic catastrophe, to take our domestic politics into civil war. The Bush administration will, make no mistake, arrest dissidents and start shooting people. They remember Vietnam. If you want to stop what might be a descending spiral into fascism, it will require individual acts of courage which will turn into spontaneous mass uprisings. I guarantee violence.

If Iran goes down, it will be up to each of us. I wish if had happened six years ago, when an obvious madman without scruples stole an election.

[freepatriot]

Geez Bob, 2 million protesters in the streets ove immigration, and its only April

you don't think people are gonna be pissed about attacking Iran ???

for starters, you ain't gonna drive your car ever again

oil embargos against the us will see to that

next, your bank is gonna foreclose on your house, cause interest rates are 25%, and deflation has reduced your house's value below the morgage principle

oh, did I mention that you won't have a job ???

no oil = no power = no commuters = no jobs

you don't think that's gonna piss people off enough to march against washington

we're already gonna be walking, might as well get some revenge for it

[semiot]

I had a conversation with my cousin's husband, an oil exploration engineer, a while back. I asked him what he thought of how things were going in Iraq. He said, "Just fine." As continued, "So Bush hasn't made any mistakes there?" Answer: "Nope." My cynical self tells me that what he means by this is that chaos in Iraq has made his job easier and more fun. As the price of oil has gone up, more exploration and development have become possible.

So far, the chaos we have birthed in the ME oil patch has benefitted the oil majors. The question now is, where is the tipping point for the corporate bosses who ultimate call the shots in BushCo? Is Iran a raise too high to cover? Stay tuned.

[rionATL]

i liked the quote from general newbold very much.

thanks for highlighting it.

it precisley captures the cold, ignorant insouciance of bush, cheny, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, feith, et al.

playing war with other people's lives (and other people's money, too).

[John Casper]

Thanks Mimikatz.

[jwp]

it is time to go into the streets of Washington DC and protest.

(No other protests will get noticed; only ones that disrupt the commute.)

Weekday protests. Regularly. Maybe monthly.

Something unusual that provides a "news hook" more substantial than whispers.

In these mad days, citizenship requires more than earnest complaining to our friends.

Time to take a few days off and stand up for what we believe.