In the spirit of the popular NPR quiz show, “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” here is a timely question for reader consideration:
For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?
I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.
The answer is below the fold!
John Edwards? He wouldn’t commit, but that’s worth at least three points.
Barack Obama? He offered the same message, so that gives you five points.
Hillary Clinton? Ohhh, so close! 8 points for that! But before you hear the answer, let’s talk about what this mystery speaker is really saying!
At the Dartmouth primary debate last Wednesday, the underlying assumption to the answers regarding ongoing American involvement in Iraq is known as the Pottery Barn Rule. Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward attributes this “rule” to Colin Powell’s advice to the president in 2002, leading up to the war in Iraq.
‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.
No matter how strongly anyone might feel about America’s responsibility for either “breaking” or “owning” Iraq, it only takes one Blackwater scandal to guess how Sunni’s, Shias, and even members of the Iraqi Police are currently responding to their loss of sovereignty to the American industrial complex. To them, it probably doesn’t matter whether America will ruled by another war-hungry Neo-Con or a long-winded, moralizing presidential candidate; in either case, the message from the people on the streets in Iraq is that they want their country back and life to return to normalcy.
The real irony of the Pottery Barn Rule is that the store by the same name has no such policy. Like anywhere else, damaged goods are written off as a loss. After spending nearly a trillion dollars in Iraq, maybe we should think about stopping our losses, too. On the other hand, by sticking to the resolute charge of “owning” Iraq because we “broke” it, we can continue to follow our current “Pottery Barn Rule” logic to it’s obvious end, as expressed by comedian Stephen Colbert:
At Pottery Barn, if you knock over a lamp, you have to glue it back together, even if when you’re done it looks terrible and it doesn’t work. Oh, and you have to stay in the store forever. Oh, and it’s an exploding lamp.
What’s most interesting about the Pottery Barn Rule is that Democratic followers seem to have bought this message, lock, stock, and barrel – war pun intended. And since they have bought into this message, they better not break it either. Moderate lefties, bloggers, and even leading presidential candidates now assume the same “rule” of foreign policy offered by Colin Powell and Richard Armitrage is, in fact, their own. Why this is seems to be the case, no one is certain, however theories among pundits suggest that Democrats just aren’t as good at coming up with their own metaphors, so they stick to the ones they’re given. That being said, maybe there really is a better way to look at our role in Iraq in a more compelling and accurate way than by comparing a country of 25 million people to a cheap porcelain lighting fixture.
It has been said, even among Republicans, that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has demonstrated all the subtly and tact of an angry bull in a china shop. In the case of Iraq, it’s pretty hard to imagine the 2002 conversation between Powell and Bush as if they were innocently stopping by the nearest Pottery Barn for a particular brand of an attackable, oil-rich nation with a conveniently slapped-on terrorist label. If they were, maybe Powell should have just said, “Let’s not go in that store. It’s too expensive and you might break something.” Instead, he warned a bull-headed Bush to please be careful and not break anything; because he would then own it. Given Bush’s strong interest in Iraq’s oil fields, some of us are still wondering, “Was that a warning or an invitation?”
The metaphor of a “Bull In a China Shop” is an apt conceptual platform for accepting our foreign policy responsibilities because we can begin corrective action more appropriately. After all, it’s not like we broke just one little piece of pottery that is the land and people of ancient Mesopatamia. The culture is mixed, the artifacts many and rare, and now the mess is absolutely incredible. Our responsibility isn’t to glue together one lamp, but repair to normalcy the lives and livelihoods of families, business people, and political leaders in a mix of cultures we barely understand.
Given this, what should we expect to hear from Democratic presidential candidates? Like the “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me” mystery quote suggests, there is a wide recognition for an “American commitment to Iraq.” But the question isn’t about commitment; it’s about finding the best way to clean up the mess.
Since we’ve got a Bull In a China Shop, here’s what we should do:
1.Get the Bull out of the China Shop. This should be obvious, but apparently it’s not. As long as our foreign policy continues to wave it’s tail around in Iraq, we’re contributing to the same mess we’re trying to clean up. By removing privatized security forces, regular military troops, and even diplomats from Iraq and even Baghdad, we can get the Bull out of the China Shop and begin to formulate a workable clean-up strategy with the real stakeholders. Diplomats and Iraqi political leaders can meet in Paris, Versailles, or New York in order to get the hard work of negotiations done.
2.Put the Bull In the Barn Already. We don’t need special forces roaming the borders of Iran or Syria while we’re busy cleaning up one store already. If we send forces anywhere, it probably should be to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
3.Get Bearish, not Bullish, on Oil. It’s terrible to mix metaphors, but in this case it’s apt: We all know that our foreign policy is nothing more than a strategic grab for Iraq’s oil fields. If Wall Street starts putting its investment dollars in alternative energy, electric car development, and other non-oil initiatives, then it can start lowering valuations — and dependence — on oil futures trading. Then we won’t need to get into this Pottery Barn mess again.
But now it’s time to get back to our special edition of “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!”
Once again, For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?
“I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.”
Condoleeza Rice. Sorry, trick question. But here’s the follow up, for another 10 points:
Which presidential candidate is most likely to get the Bull In the China Shop out of Iraq?
Wait, wait… Zero troops in Iraq, right? Don’t tell me!
Bill Richardson!!!