Kavon suggests that McCain has made a smart move in predicting that the troops will probably be home by 2013 if he’s elected. I’m not so sure. It seems to me that when you accept, even implicitly, the idea of a timeline, you’re essentially surrendering half of the issue. Americans may or may not want victory. But I think, give them the choice of two timetables to end a war they no longer believe in, and they’ll choose the sooner. That’s not to say McCain actually CALLED for a timetable, but as Aron has noted, this is the way it’s been played in every media outlet. McCain’s essentially saying, as far as the public is concerned, “I know you dislike this war. I’ll have us out of there in 4-5 years”. Obama’s saying “I know you dislike this war. I’ll have us out of there in 1 year”. McCain should have said, implicitly, something like “I know you dislike this war, but if we’re on the verge of success, and whatever the Democrats tell you, we’ll be forced to go back to the region after it descends into chaos if we rashly withdraw”.

It’s a framing problem; by conceding that withdrawal is a primary focus, to such an extent that we can expect a rough date of withdrawal, you’re putting the focus on the competing dates. That’s why the Democrats tried so long to sell the “100 years of war” comment. Because, Americans generally want the war to end; they’re rather eager to focus on withdrawal as it is. So 100 years of war is immediately contrasted to Obama’s “1 more year of war”. Only it didn’t work, because the comment was utterly distorted, which even the media eventually conceded. But, McCain’s now put the focus back on dates and on withdrawal in a genuine and legitimate fashion. And withdrawing in 1 year still sounds more promising then withdrawing in 4 years.

Framing is an enormously important thing in politics, and when it’s working properly, it often leads to opponents debating past each other. Pro-choice activists don’t talk about the baby; they never mention their belief that it’s not a person entitled to rights. They put the focus on the mother and her rights. Because to talk about the baby, even if you label it an embryo, implicitly concedes the point; it puts the issue back on grounds favorable to the pro-life position.

Because while a majority of Americans are pro-choice, only a minority would say the embryo isn’t a valuable person; ergo the whole pro-choice, but anti-abortion schtick. So a good pro-choicer says something like “We can’t take away a woman’s right to choose. It’s a difficult and heartwrenching choice, but it’s hers to make”. They put the woman first, and to soften the position, they obliquely refer to the baby via “heartwrenching choice” language. What’s a heartwrenching choice? They don’t tell us exactly, because getting more explicit shifts the issue back towards pro-life terrain; but it’s implied, and softens the position well enough.

Similarly, pro-lifers don’t talk about their belief that a woman doesn’t have a right to control her body in this circumstance. Because when you shift the language to question’s of autonomy and freedom, you’re wandering into territory favorable to pro-choicers. Instead, they talk about the rights of the unborn, protecting innocent life, and the like. A good pro-lifer says something like, “I believe firmly in the rights of the unborn. We have to protect innocent life. And we have to help those who are struggling with this issue, through counseling and charity”. The focus is on the unborn. On protection. On innocent life. And then they make an oblique reference to the plight of the woman, to soften the position.

So you have essentially two competing arguments, which never bother to address the other argument. Pro-lifers say, “we must protect innocent life and the unborn”. Pro-choicers say “we must preserve a woman’s right to choose how she uses her body”. Under no circumstances does either side actually debate the issue. Under no circumstances does a pro-choicer say “geeze, genetically an embryo is a mostly undifferentiated clump of cells. I can’t believe you’re willing to restrict a woman’s freedom for an undifferentiated clump of cells”. Under no circumstances does a pro-lifer say “geeze, women have plenty of choices in life, but their right to their body is trumped by the right to life”. You’re adding an unnecessary negative thrust to your position. Instead, politicians put the favorable arguments out there, knowing that a majority of the population sympathizes with each argument, and they hope for the best.

It seems to me that with something like Iraq, an issue where there’s considerably more public sentiment for withdrawal then a lengthy occupation, it’s even riskier to switch over to your opponent’s ground. Because you leave yourself in a position of being outbid. I.e, “good, we both agree on withdrawal. The public wanted withdrawal before your concession, and now they’ve positively surrendered themselves to the idea. My withdrawal is better (read, sooner) then yours. I win”. Or imagine it in this way “Good, we both agree that the government has a role in fixing the economy, through various government programs. My programs are more extensive then yours. I win”. That’s what has been happening to fiscally conservative arguments for decades; once you’ve conceded government can have a role, it’s not quite clear why the public shouldn’t prefer a more extensive role (unless you can argue persuasively that bigger isn’t necessarily better). Once you’ve conceded that the issue is primarily about the type of creature an embryo is, it’s not clear why a fairly religious and moral public shouldn’t prefer an argument that protects that creature, rather then an argument which merely sympathizes with him. Once you’ve conceded that the path forward in Iraq is about bringing the troops home, it’s not clear why a weary public shouldn’t prefer a quicker withdrawal.

If McCain wants the situation to turn out differently, he needs to relentlessly put the “date” issue in the foreground of his plan. Everytime someone says “why is your date later then Barack’s? Americans want to be home sooner”, he needs to say “Look, I’m happy to tell Americans when I expect the mission to be completed. They’ve earned a little candor, after putting up with all the failures of the Bush administration. But, my date is later then Barack’s, because my primary focus isn’t withdrawal, but victory, and a victory that won’t draw us back into the region in a year or two. Barack’s date gives us no hope of that.”