Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Cut-and-Run BoomerangBush's political speech undermines his diplomacy.

By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Oct. 6, 2006, at 7:10 PM ET

This week George Bush jacked up his rhetoric on Iraq, charging that "the Democratic party is the party of cut and run." We've heard this accusation before from Republicans, but usually the commander in chief only hints at it, leaving the more direct formulation to political operatives or at least his vice president (for some, that's a distinction without a difference).

The cut-and-run phrase is an effective political weapon. It's pithy and plays on the public perception that Democrats are weak on issues of national security. The Democrats also can't agree about what to do in Iraq, so they can't fight back effectively.

It is also a very dumb phrase. It diminishes the debate by suggesting all options are crystal clear. It poisons the dialogue by angering those reasonable Democrats in Congress who are searching for a middle ground and by freezing those Republicans who want to offer constructive criticism but can't for fear they'll be accused of wanting to cut and run. As one Republican congressman put it recently: "Reality has been suspended for a moment. Republicans cannot speak out publicly on this issue right now."

Bush has avoided this particular "cut and run" construction because it dilutes the special rhetorical authority of his office. He remains at least a little above the fray, in the hopes that people will pay special attention to his words. That he is now resorting to the blunt catchphrases of midday cable news debates is perhaps the final admission that his loftier speeches have not worked. Or perhaps Bush was just trying to be heard this week. Mark Foley's heavy breathing by BlackBerry consumed a lot of news cycles. Maybe Bush should have talked about Iraq by IM to get heard.

But the most important reason the president shouldn't use any formulation of the "cut and run" language is that withdrawing from Iraq is part of his strategy. Secretary of State Rice just made a surprise visit to Iraq, and her message to Iraqi leaders had a hard truth at its core: If you don't make more progress faster, we're out of here. American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad uses this stick in his negotiations every day. President Bush told Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, last month ''that the United States of America stands with them, so long as the government continues to make the tough choices necessary for peace to prevail.'' Mr. Talabani might have asked the president what the United States of America would do if the Iraqis don't make those tough choices. Will the United States cut and run?

White House officials argue a distinction: Their negotiating tactics put pressure on the Iraqis without sending a signal to the insurgents that their brutality is working. That's too nuanced for me. The argument against Democratic proposals for a timetable for withdrawal is that insurgents can just wait out the Americans, planning to take over after the date the United States sets for leaving. But if insurgents think that way—and intercepts of their communications suggest they do—then they're equally capable of designing their strategy around the public pressure Bush administration officials are putting on Iraqi leaders. Insurgents will make the violence impossible for Iraqi leaders to solve, which will lead the United States to conclude those leaders are not making hard choices and pull out. The insurgents will have their victory.

The additional problem with the White House arguing this distinction is that Bush and the Republicans have done their best to blot out nuance. That's the whole point of the "cut and run" attack—to label all talk of withdrawal as weak appeasement. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin's proposal for a series of benchmark tests that would lead to withdrawal is not that different from administration policy in Iraq. But no Republican dares admit that in an election year, so they dish out a little more "cut and run" to lump all Democrats together. If Bush is successful, voters will find Levin indistinguishable from Rep. John Murtha who has called for a faster withdrawal and whose claim that "we've failed" in Iraq is politically not palatable for most Americans. In the hands of administration officials, withdrawal is a useful tool. Used by others, it is a tragic disaster.

The president may get away with defining withdrawal one way in the political sphere and another way in the diplomatic one. Voters may not see the logical inconsistency. But voters aren't the only ones watching. The National Intelligence Estimate makes it clear that if the jihadists think they've won in Iraq by hastening the U.S. withdrawal, they'll only grow in power. Spinning victory in this case has serious consequences. Whenever and however the United States leaves, it's going to have to look like a clear win. The sloppy political talk of "cut and run" limits Bush's options because he can't really ever make good on his threat to leave Iraq if he thinks its leaders aren't making the tough choices. Democrats would be well within their rights to call that cutting and running. Having used the term so recklessly to define all gradations of withdrawal, Bush invites opponents to use it just as recklessly to define his decision to start bringing troops home. Insurgents would find comfort in that debate and think they'd won. Jihadists will find any pretext and think they've prevailed even in the moment of their incineration, but the president and others dishing out the accusations of "cut and run" shouldn't be helping them.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Bush will never cut and run. Bush is free to use that kind of rhetoric because he is a lame-duck president who knows that the problems of withdrawal (or even defeat) will be faced by some other administration -- maybe even a Democratic one. Bush can go to his political grave believing what he likes, it's not like he's about to alter his course (let alone reverse it) this late in the game.

Bush is setting up a 'historical' defense. No matter how bad things get in Iraq, and no matter how messy the withdrawal process, I predict that we will hear Bush & Co. declaring "Well, we were winning when WE were in power..."

--fozzy

(To reply, click here.)

The silly phrase "cut and run" implies defeat. We heard it all through the Vietnam war, but the United States was never defeated. We won every military battle. We paid no reparations. Viet Kong troops never occupied any of our territory. Now, almost 40 years later, is a single American worse off because we finally admitted that a POLICY had failed? We finally had to face the fact that in order to "win" we would have to kill most of the people in both North and South Vietnam because both sides wanted a unified country under Ho Chi Min. The only casualties of cutting and running were the bruised egos of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk, Walt Rostov, and a bunch of lesser scoundrels in Washington. There egos were certainly not worth the lives of 50,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese.

Although the details are different --- Iraqis want to break up not unite the country, and the consequences of a failed policy more serious --- the same outline is true in Iraq. Sooner or later we will have to admit that the POLICY has failed. Our young people are dying, not defending freedom but defending the egos of a bunch of inept clowns in Washington.

--Clark_Kent

(To reply, click here.)

The Bush administration has spent the last few years demonstrating that the limited military support option will never work. It hasn't worked up to this point, except to delay the outright, overt civil war in Iraq. It seems to me that we have only two options left -- some version of cut and run or some version of going in with much more force to try to win the war outright. Both options have several variants, but the next President will have to go one way or the other. As we continue with our current failed policy, even the number of variants for these limited approaches will decrease and ignominious loss will be the only option left.

--djg122951

(To reply, click here.)

My theory is that the reason conservatives remain loyal to the GOP is not because they're happy with the party, and not because they're idiots, but because they dislike liberals on an emotional level. And as long as contempt for liberals is a higher priority than everything else, they will remain loyal regardless of what the GOP does.

If you accept this theory, then the Bush's offensive makes perfect sense. Blaming the Democrats distracts people from the facts of the reality because it re-stokes the "liberal hating" fires. Conservatives are predisposed to support the GOP, but they have to have something to hang their hat on. So, if you have nothing else to run with, blame the Dems. The point is not so much to come up with an explanation that's factually plausible, the point is to give people something (anything) that will reaffirm their pre-existing emotional loyalties. In other words, it gives people who want to root for you something to say, something to think, and something to ease cognitive dissonance.

Bush needs to find some way to release the building pressure on his Iraq story. If blaming the Dems rallies conservatives, maybe that will do the trick.

--sashal

(To reply, click here.)

(10/7)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton