Having a substantive debate on Iraq

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article in today's Washington Post that deserves a serious look.

The War and the Words

The essence of Charles' argument is absolutely true, which is that the substantive debate about what to do in Iraq is being swamped by a trite debate and how to refer to the war and how to frame positions without really debating them.

Being a conservative who has, last I read, opposed a surge, Charles' should have some credibility in trying to refocus us on a substantive debate. He doesn't have an ax to grind in a conventional political way because he doesn't seem to support the efforts of his fellow conservatives, even as he supports their aims. Paradoxically, I am someone who has been a liberal most of his life (though I'm much more of a moderate independent in my old age) who supports a surge. But what I appreciate most about Charles' column is his desire to hear and have engaged a much more substantive debate about alternative proposals rather than so much of the political positioning without a more engaged and thoughtful debate.

As Charles' ends that piece:

"The problem with this battle over words is that it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening in Iraq. There will be real troops on real missions regardless of what label they are given. The country is engaged in a serious debate about exactly what strategy to pursue to either prosecute the war or withdraw in an orderly fashion. The Senate might consider putting such a debate on its agenda."

Iraq above all other policy priorities, right now, would seem to warrant to gravity of a more substantive policy debate and discussion. It has not been afforded that debate because the players in power are not accustomed to engaging thoughtful discussions that consider at length alternative arguments and proposals. Democrats and Republicans are accustomed to playing politics to win, not to engage one another to develop better policies that account for the deepest and most serious concerns of those impacted by them. They are used to having opinions, not rigorously engaging and sorting through better arguments to arrive at sounder policies.

That sort of debate has been usually saved for the eggheads in universities and academic circles rather than serious power players with elections to win and bases to play to.

And as Charles argues in this piece, that is a reality that needs to change.