Getting the Message

Greyhawk

John Boehner:

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.

Hey, I'm pretty busy these days, too.

(Via The Tank)

Boehner is a Republican congressman - so it should be noted that Democrats would probably characterize the events (or non-events) he describes in a different light.

Likewise, the Democrats have little to fear from attending hearings with General Petraeus. While they might not like what they hear, that will matter very little - because American voters aren't going to hear it anyway. That's simply a matter of supreme confidence in their own complete domination of the field of message control.

Case in point from this week: Harry Reid declares the war is lost. In most regards this is a "dog bites man" story. But take a look at the circumstances in which he made the comment:

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.

"This is the message I took to the president," Reid said at a news conference.

"Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, of Nevada.

We'll talk violence in a moment. First, the boring part - that meeting. The meeting itself was to discuss the supplemental funding bill (aka the Iraq withdrawal bill - aka the 40+ billion in pork projects bill) currently making it's way to the President for veto. Want details of the meeting? Here are all the details the story provides:

In their meeting, Bush and congressional Democrats failed to settle their fight over funding for the Iraq war, as lawmakers pressed Bush to accept a troop withdrawal timetable.

And that's that. Probably 90% of Americans have no idea the meeting occurred. And certainly few realize that (as in the Petraeus story above) Democrats initially tried to present an attitude of "not interested":

“What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants,” Pelosi said at an afternoon news conference in San Francisco to discuss her trip to the Middle East last week. “That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.”

But for whatever reason they had a change of heart, the meeting occurred, Senator Reid promptly declared the war lost, and the meeting itself became a sub-paragraph in a story devoted to that comment. And that, good friends, is message control - and Republican congressmen would do well to note that before taunting Democrats about attending meetings.

It does make for quite an exciting headline - especially on a day when nearly 200 Iraqi civilians are killed. And as noted, most of the rest of the details are boring - math stuff, even. For instance, what of the 40 billion in pork? Was it discussed in the meeting? Will it be a political payoff to eliminate the withdrawal conditions? I'd like to know - and it certainly seems that even the most partisan Republican or Democrat might share that concern - albeit with slightly different focus. But from the reporters, nary a peep...

*****

But certainly some questions deserve an answer. How goes the war? Who is winning? Those did get some attention in the coverage of Reid's declaration that it's "not us":

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.
<...>
Suspected Sunni al Qaeda militants detonated a string of bombs in mostly Shi'ite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday. The worst was a truck bombing that killed 140 people in the deadliest single insurgent attack since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

That certainly is an example of fate smiling on the Democrats - albeit with a sinister smile. While violence occurs daily in Iraq, to have one of the most horrific attacks in history occur on the day of the meeting with the President is certainly an act of providence they could not possibly welcome.

As it was when the exact same thing happened three weeks prior, immediately before the congressional Spring Break:

March 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House of Representatives voted yesterday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year - a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

March 25, 2007:

BAGHDAD — Suicide bombers struck in force across Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 46 people and wounding scores in an explosion of street violence after days of relative calm.

In the deadliest attack, a man driving a truck with explosives hidden under bricks detonated his bomb at a police station under construction in the south Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, a Sunni insurgent stronghold.
<...>
Another suicide bomber detonated his explosives in a candy store in the northwestern city of Tall Afar, killing 10. Three more struck checkpoints and a police station in the northwest, along the border with Syria, killing six.

Later:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide truck bombing in the northern city of Tal Afar last week is the deadliest single attack since the Iraq war began in 2003, a high-ranking Iraqi Interior Ministry official said Monday as a new death toll for the blast surfaced.

The Wednesday attack -- in which a truck packed with 4,000 pounds (1,814 kilograms) of explosives detonated in a Shiite area of the city -- was initially blamed for 85 deaths, according to an Iraqi army officer in Tal Afar who estimated the death toll Thursday. Hundreds of others were wounded.

But the Interior Ministry official said Monday that the death toll was 152, making it the war's deadliest single attack.

Until this week*.

Pure coincidence?

No:

To achieve their second goal, turning Americans against the war, the mujahideen need to shape their operations "to support anti- war sentiment in the west", he says.

Let's not go tinfoil hat here - the Democrats aren't in collusion with al Qaeda. It's a simple matter for the terrorist group to time their attacks to coincide with very public, and very scheduled events in the United States. One doesn't need a "mastermind" to intuit that - it would be tactically ridiculous to act otherwise.

Of course, message requires medium - and we have media. One might expect someone therein to notice the synchronicity of operations and recognize something beyond divine providence or the whims of war...

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.

"This is the message I took to the president," Reid said at a news conference.

"Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, of Nevada.

...or not.

Violence isn't boring - it is something else entirely. Something of which we are not fond - something we prefer not to dwell upon, something we choose not to examine in too great detail - it is far easier to condemn it, then turn away without noticing the gory details.

This, good friends, is al Qaeda message control.

*****

So given their supremacy in message control, one might think it a good tactic to appear to be grabbing the Democrats by the hand and forcing them to sit and listen to General Petraeus - someone who may be able to garner at least some attention for the counterpoint. But if Congressman Boehner - or any other individual - believes the Democrats will be intimidated by hearing the message a politically neutral (although deeply involved at the pointy end of policy) and ostensibly respected visitor might bring to the table, he'd best think again.

"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
<...>
"A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations."
-- President Bush announcing the new strategy for Iraq, January, 2007

"Coalition and Iraqi soldiers and police have had some tough days as well. It is such violence that Iraqi and coalition forces will work together to reduce in the months ahead, recognizing, to be sure, that some sensational attacks inevitably will continue to take place, though every effort will be made to reduce their number by identifying and destroying the networks and facilities of the bombers, and by interdicting those who would visit such violence on the Iraqi people.

"We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations, such as the one we began establishing in Sadr City on Monday, as well as combat outposts to ensure continuous presence in local communities.
<...>
"As citizens feel safer, conditions will be set for the resumption and improvement of basic services. This is hugely important.
<...>
"Indeed, our operations will endeavor to provide Iraq citizens and leaders a chance to mend that fabric. If we can do this -- and I do believe that Iraqi and coalition soldiers and police will be able to improve levels of security for the Iraqi population -- then the Iraqi government will have the chance it needs to resolve some of the difficult issues it faces, to develop the capacity of its institutions, to improve the delivery of basic services to its citizens and to reconcile the differences between the factions that are the stakeholders in the new Iraq. Our effort, thus, will be to provide the Iraqi government an opportunity to shape the future of a new state in an ancient land.
<...>
"In an endeavor like this one, the host nation and those who are assisting it obviously are trying to determine over time who are the irreconcilables and who are the reconcilables. And they're on either end of the sectarian spectrum, of ethnic spectrums, political spectrums and so forth. And of course, what the government is trying to do, what those supporting the government are trying to do are to split the irreconcilables from the reconcilables and to make the reconcilables part of the solution rather than a continuing part of a problem, and then dealing with the irreconcilables differently. And that is certainly what the government of Iraq is doing and what those who are supporting the government of Iraq -- what the coalition is also doing, in very, very early stages.
<...>
"With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

"A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial. That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers."

-- General Petraeus, first briefing from Baghdad, March, 2007.

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, challenged President Bush on Saturday over his threat to reject an Iraq spending bill if it calls for a troop withdrawal...
“With his veto threat,” she said in a statement, “the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.”

That, good friends, is message control.

*****

But certainly, in speaking to congress, General Petraeus can "clarify" issues. After all,

When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq.

...and,

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."

...but,

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), until recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of one of those resolutions, later explained to the general that he needed to be more careful about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with President Bush.

Proving that Republicans can practice message control, too.

And anyhow, if the General doesn't behave himself, and insists on talking "political" issues, well, the Democrats are ready for that, too...

*****

Senator Reid was a busy man this week:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for “clinging to a failed escalation strategy” in Iraq and “failing our troops and our country.”

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as “props” by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said “the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it.”

With a banner behind them that said “Support the Troops” and “Transition the Mission” Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
<...>
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as “props” by the administration. “The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy.”

The only things new about the Democrats using Generals are the specific names. Last year they had a different crew.

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."
<...>
Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

That call for a surge was why they had to be replaced on the podium, of course.

You probably heard that last year's generals had called for Rumsfeld to be fired - but did you know they had called for a surge?

That, good friends, is message control.

2006 - before shifting strategy: Failed strategy

2007 - after shifting strategy: Failed strategy

That's called sticking to the message.

*****

And if you'd like to see a subtle shift in message - how about this: In the early days of the surge, Democrats wanted to pretend it hadn't begun. Now - with implementation half way accomplished, it's a complete "failure".

What you don't read (or don't know) is part of message control, too.

One thing generally absent within stories that bring "into question the US-backed security plan for the capital" are any attempts to answer said questions. But explanations of exactly what Coalition Forces are doing are available and unclassified - in the broader details - thus there's no valid reason to leave the reader to conclude that the answer is "nothing".

But for reasons as inexplicable as the motives behind suicide attacks on university students, most reporters are content to do just that.

So don't read this, either.

*****

But we began by discussing a possible meeting between General Petraeus and congressional members next week. (And oh by the way, that day might be a good day for a lock-down in Baghdad.)

So is this meeting hopeless? No - significant advances can be made. In the interest of readiness, the General may want to request a copy of upcoming schedules - or at least a couple of days "heads up" to any future key votes or meetings on their plan for withdrawal. If the Democrats don't see that as a threat to message control, they'd probably oblige.

That bit of take-away intel probably won't counter the negative impact on American military efforts from the inevitable press releases and bumper sticker quotations masked as news stories that result from the briefing, but it just might save a few American and Iraqi lives.

*****

In the interest of fairness, here's one last key message, without additional comment:

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

*****

UPDATE (April 27): Was I right or wrong? A post-briefing followup here.

*****

Notes:

*Sharp readers will note that this week's "deadliest single attack since the start of the war" killed fewer people than the previous "deadliest single attack since the start of the war" - but I see no point in quibbling over which data point/sound bite is most accurate - they are both bad.

But here's a story you didn't read about that bombing in Tal Afar.

And here's another example of message control. (And in all the brouhaha over McCain and Ware, who knew they agreed on the fundamental points? Another example of message control? You bet - I got a million of 'em...)