FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: THE 'OCCUPATION' STRIKES BACK

RICE ON LEBANON: SEC OF STATE PULLS OUT  SAME  CONCEPTS USED TO SELL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON  OCCUPATION OF IRAQ

According to a recent Washington Post article, if President Bush has his way the end result of the 'war' between Israel and Hezbollah will be--that's right, you guessed it--the American  occupation of Lebanon:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outlined a plan Monday to deploy an international force, possibly led by NATO, in a buffer zone just inside Lebanon for 60 to 90 days, after which it would expand its mission to help the Lebanese army regain control of the south, Lebanese and U.S. officials said.

The force would also help train the army, which according to U.S. officials now has neither the will nor the means to disarm Hezbollah, Lebanon's last private militia.

(see the rest of the article by Robin Wright and Scott Wilson here)

Any of this look familiar?  'International force' 'help the Lebanese army regain control' 'help train the army'--oh, my, goodness!  President Bush has not only ignored the American people's desire to end the Iraq occupation in Iraq, but he is using the exact same concepts that he has been serving up for three years on Iraq.   If that is the case, Americans must wonder if President Bush has begun selling yet another Middle East military operation to the American public using clever framing and false pretenses.

Having turned a useless and illegal war into a failed occupation in Iraq--having used lies and deceit to heap suffering on the already suffering people of the Middle East--having soured the good will of every foreign ally America once had--having sent America's most idealistic men and women to die based on manipulative PR, resulting in the anguish and frustration of countless military families--having burned and lost billions upon billions of dollars that could have been invested in healthcare, education, and jobs--President Bush now chooses not to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but to lay down plans for another occupation in the Middle East. 

Unbelievable.  The Bush administration says it will not send troops to Lebanon. But they also said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq could drop chemical weapons on New York in 30 minutes, that the aluminum tubes could be used only to make bombs, that there were countless mobile weapons factories, that they did not leak the name of of a cover CIA agent working on Iran--and now they are saying that they will not send troops to Lebanon. 

What is Condi Ric doing in her trip to the Middle East?  She is invoking a frame that makes occupation seem like the only logical choice, and then--in 48 hours,  maybe a week--she will tell us that America has a responsibility to help Lebanon 'stand up' or 'grow into an adult Democracy' or some such nonsense like that.  What we are seeing now is a setting of the frame.  It is the same technique they used to lay the groundwork for the occupation of Iraq.  And it is a clear indication that they are laying the groundwork for the occupation of Lebanon.

How should progressives frame this?  By using the word 'occupation' and phrases that invoke it.

The American people do not want a U.S. military occupation of Lebanon, whether or not it is framed through the cynical phrase 'lasting peace' or concealed within the Orwellian idea of an 'international' force' that--supposedly--with not include American soldiers.
 

This Is How The Bush Team Does It:  They Say The Opposite Of What They Mean
Americans are a trusting people. We want to trust our government.  But the administration of George W. Bush has consistently said the exact opposite of  what they are really doing as part of extended, and well-planned, PR strategies designed to accomplish their military goals.

For at least 5 years, now, the ideologues who run the Bush foreign policy machine have wanted to use military force to invade, occupy and restructure a list of Middle Eastern nations that includes: Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

This is not guesswork.

The rhetoric of the Secretary of State is designed not to assist the Israeli or the Lebanese people, but to advance the Neo-Con agenda  still being pushed, and pushed hard, by the  radical foreign policy hawks who  run the White House.

If the Lebanese proposal does not look like an American occupation to us at this point, that is largely because we want to believe that it is not going to be become one.  But the White House framing efforts and their policy track record strongly indicate that Lebanon will become the next U.S. military occupation. 

Framing This Crisis As Another 'Occupation'
All the bombs and suffering that has resulted form this new escalation between Israel and Hesbollah is clearly moving towards a plan for the American occupation of Lebanon that--on paper--looks identical to what we have in Iraq.

From this, Progressives must articulate for the American public that the real goal--the ultimate objective--of the Bush military policies in the Middle East is not to 'liberate' or to 'help' or to 'aid' the region, but to occupy it.  Here are some phrases that evoke the reality of an American occupation in Iraq, Lebanon or elsewhere:

• Staying there forever
• Never leaving
• Permanent bases
• Taking over
• Moving in
• Setting up camp
• Our new home

These and any other phrases that evoke the idea of 'occupation' should enter into Progressive policy speeches, Congressional statements, blog writing, and everyday conversation as much as possible.

The goal?  To push to make the reality of the Bush goal to occupy the Middle East part of the common sense vernacular of the American people.

The reason this is so difficult is not because the American people are evil or stupid, but because we are idealistic. We want to believe that we are 'helping' to 'liberate' and bring a 'lasting peace' to the region by...moving in, taking over, setting up camp, building permanent bases, and staying forever in the Middle East.  We want to believe it is for good.

But we cannot move the United States military into the Middle East permanently and achieve good. That will  result only in more death and destruction.

And so, to help stop Bush from opening a second front in the American occupation of Iraq, we must be against the policy, but also must actively push the frame of 'occupation.'

SUMMARY

KEYWORDS USED BY BUSH, RICE:  'Lasting Peace' 'International Force'
PROGRESSIVE RE-FRAME: 'Occupation'
PHRASED TO EVOKE NEW FRAME: 

• Staying there forever
• Never leaving
• Permanent bases
• Taking over
• Moving in
• Setting up camp
• Our new home

©  2006 Jeffrey Feldman

Link to this article using this URL:

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2006/07/frameshop_the_e.html