What A Democratic Win Would Mean To Iraq Policy
So if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress and get back on the road to power, ending divided government, will there be a big transformation? The Christian Science Monitor doesn’t think so:
In poll after poll, prospective voters name Iraq as the No. 1 issue in the upcoming midterm elections.So if voters tip one or both Houses of Congress out of Republican control, what impact would that have on the US war effort in Iraq and, more generally, on American foreign policy?
Democrats could conceivably view such an election outcome as a mandate for asserting a markedly different course in Iraq than the one President Bush has set.
But don’t expect too much, most experts say.
For one thing, Democrats are not of one mind on what to do about Iraq. And while committees chaired by Democrats might hold more meetings and call more testifiers critical of some White House policies, Mr. Bush would still retain the power of the presidential bully pulpit.
In addition, Bush’s foreign policy in the second term has already evolved in a direction – away from unilateralism and toward greater cooperation – that suits both Bush’s political opponents and moderates in his own party, some analysts say.
For others, the differences between Bush and the Democrats on the big foreign-policy issues are really a matter of details and not starkly black and white.
“My hunch is that there wouldn’t be a large change in American foreign policy with a divided government because there really hasn’t been a deep division over the overall direction of that policy,” says Julian Zelizer, a specialist in foreign policy and contemporary American politics at Boston University.
“It’s ironic because the rhetoric has been so fierce,” Mr. Zelizer adds. “But there is general consensus on the war on terror, and even on Iraq it’s principally a matter of specifics – for example, the exit strategy and how to handle the Iraqi government. It’s not, ‘the president says stay’ versus ‘the Democrats say get out now.’ “
Of course, in his campaign stops President George Bush is suggesting the differences are close to that. But Zelizer and others quoted in the CSM article are correct (one reason why Bush’s rhetoric could backfire with some voters who might resent the characterization). One more likely impact will be the accentuation between the DLC and liberal factions of the Democratic party on Iraq and several other core issues.
Meanwhile, Kiko’s House offers this take on what will happen if the U.S. withdraws.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “What A Democratic Win Would Mean To Iraq Policy”
Radical change? No, but at least oversight with some accountability. Congress holds the monetary keys and that will be where the President is going to have a rude awakening as to the political process, if in fact the Dems win. He will now have to do something he has never done before, convince congress that his plan is going to work and have some type of benchmark progress report to show it is working.
To me, this article highlights the duplicity of the Democrats: they want the political win by arguing that Iraq is a failure but they really don’t plan to change anything on our Iraq policy anyway. I find it hard to believe that Democratic and Independent voters don’t see that they are being used, but I guess their anger is blinding them to that. For many people, I guess sending a message to Bush that they are unhappy is enough, but I feel that we need an actual change in policy course, and that is what we should be demanding.
CS,
Well, the only way to see that happen would be impeachment. But as a good Republican you don’t want that either. Why? Because even if they take the Senate and House Democrats would still be limited by their powers versus those of the President, the Commander-in-Chief. Bush would still be President. Cheney will still be VP. Rummy will still be SecDef.
What could the Democrats do? They could threaten to vote to withhold funding for the war. Then you and your fellow Republicans would scream about them being weak on defense and refusing to support our troops. The truth is that anyone who supports the Republicans would attack the Democrats if they actually did anything within the limits of legislative power to attempt to change things. So who’s really being duplicitous?
CS: To me, this article highlights the duplicity of the Democrats:
Say what?? I reread the article and failed to see even the faintest hint of duplicity.
Do you know something about the motives of Democrats all the rest of us don’t? Seems like you’re claiming to.
Uh, jjc, did you read the article?
Joe interpreted that to mean that Bush is falsely playing up the differences between his policy and that which the Dems would take, but my point is that what Zelizer really said is that the rhetoric has been harsh but really both sides aren’t very far from each other on how they would handle Iraq- so why are the Dems trying to portray themselves as the antidote to Bush?
Joe, I er … don’t understand ‘ending divided government’ in the lede sentence. Ending?
so why are the Dems trying to portray themselves as the antidote to Bush?
Uhh, because Republicans just act they are in a cult that worships Bush as a minor God? Compared to that, Pe-wee Hertman would seem a resaonable counter to the clownshow currently known as Republican governance.
If you oppose what Bush is doing, about all you got is Democrats. I think with the Dems, you have a chance of a least getting some high caliber thought on the subject.
With Republicans you just get more of the same.
Believe me, I have my beef with the establishment dems, but your constant “woe is me” about Dems rings hollow when you consider what an empty bag your favored party has turned out to be.
Look, we’ve been through it all before so I’m sorry I brought it up. I get that you all feel that the Dems are the only choice. I agree, BTW, with Jim S that the GOP is being duplicitous too when they play up the differences between Bush and the Dems on Iraq policy.
Duplicity as in like this …
From the WaPo
Yeah gotta love that Republican plan.
Uh, CS, please show me from the article where a Democrat say something to the effect that “we actually don’t disagree that much with Bush on the war on terror.”
Julian Zelizner, whoever he is, seems to think that’s the case, but even he doesn’t speculate on the motives of either side. That’s on the table courtesy of you alone.
A quick short answer is a Truman committee as opposed to the Roberts committee.
What if it meant far more than Iraq?
The war, the end of wars over petroleum, erosion of civil rights, hatred of Americans, greenhouse gases and global warming, American jobs and the future of our economy and of future generations.
Here’s how a different vision — and YES we do have one — can change all of these things at once.
Petropower or Homegrown Green Fuels ?
Please pass this link on if you can see this vision of ending the waste of blood and treasure on the desert sands. We can (largely) end our dependence on foreign oil.
C Stanley,
I really don’t think the Democrats are being dishonest by not bringing a definitive Iraq policy to the table. They are being politically astute, which may be worse. But then everybody’s doing it these days.
There are no good options left other than turning to those countries Bush labelled the Axis of Evil- Syria (while not on the original list, a worthy replacement for Iraq) and Iran.
This, I suggest, will never happen as long as Bush is president, and his administration’s attitude to the rest of the world is so toxic its doubtful the help which might have come from that direction will now materialise until his term of office is over.
A majority of Americans believe the War was wrong and is weakening the country, but they also understand that to abandon Iraq now would be a further disaster, not because it would be seen as a victory for Al Qaeda (they gained that the day Bush invaded), but for the millions of Iraqis who will die horribly in the inevitable civil war that will follow any pull out.
The Dems know there is no immediate solution that will fit into a soundbite, and to offer anything more detailed than ‘we need to change course’ would open them to a killer blow.
While the Iraq war is the single most important issue facing America today, the possibility of honest debate was crushed the day Karl Rove decided labelling Democrats traitors was the best way to win a permanent majority.
The biggest difference is oversight. In every facet of our foreign policy w/ regards to Iraq. Currently we’re spending billions, but we have no real idea where its all going. That alone makes me want Dems to take over, to go after the massive waste and profits by contractors that are not fulfilling the contracts they signed. That is MY money being spent, and dammit I want to know what it is being used for. Right now I know Halliburton has made a ton of profits, and that numerous fly by night, pay the congressman (cunnigham) under the table type defense contractors are making profits while producing nada.
Additionally, any changes will have to go through our legislators, both house &Senate. That will mean Bush/Cheney/rummy will need more than one “stay the course” plan. That can and should lead to discussions between the white house and our other two branches.
I agree with Jim S. Especially when you look at how most Democratic legislation or amendments to legislation never reaches the floor, and debate on the war was actively prevented by its leadership. It would be great just to know we no longer have a rubber stamp congress.
A story made the news today that 90,000 weapons that were supposed to go to the Iraqi army have gone missing-no one knows. Another article described how contractor KBR was paid huge sums for overhead and security for 9 months, while doing almost no reconstruction work. And the mismanagement continues.
Kim is right about the missing weapons. The number is basically 1 in every 25 weapons provided to Iraqi security forces is missing. In addition the serial numbers of these weapons were never recorded.
Here’s another reason to consider Iraq to already be a lost cause. We wanted the Iraqis to have a government and now they have one. Of course it’s one that is too weak to do anything about heavily armed militias that kill Sunnis and Americans and we don’t have the forces to do anything about them either. So Maliki panders to them and gives them whatever they want.
Well, get a copy of this months issue of Texas Monthly and one thing will be crystal clear to you.
Dick Cheney is not gonna like Democrats with subpoena power. An article in this months issue lays out in detail why.
Of course it’s one that is too weak to do anything about heavily armed militias that kill Sunnis and Americans
What is terrifying to me is that just as many of the mujahdeen that we trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets used that training to train terrorists,some members of the police and army that we have invested so much in are joining the militias. The police force is already heavily infiltrated. This is probably the main reason that Maliki can’t control the violence. With anarchy on the streets, militias can act with impunity. Maliki is alligned with Sadr- so Sadr City has become off-limits to American forces. Maliki says he wants control of Iraqi forces-but that would mean the militias will continue to operate freely, since he needs their cooperation to hold the country together.
I agree with Truflo, the last time a Democrat proposed anything Rove turned it into the beautiful [for him] “cut and run� sound bite theme. Why hand them something new for the AM radio types? I am surprised that the Dems did not make more of an issue of this, but as events unfolded in Iraq the “stay the course� theme also rang hollow, so why bother. I think the Dems should say that they will work on a bipartisan basis on the results of the Baker report, and reinforce that this was the discussion we should have been having a long time ago.
Grognard- I agree with you completely. I think “stay the course” has come back to haunt the Republicans as much as it has helped them in the past. Where once it was seen as connoting American strength in the face of adversity, now it is seen as a stubborn refusal to change course in the face of the reality on the ground.
The WH realized this, and tried to overcorrect, (by saying this had never been the policy) but Bush’s statement only emphasized the WH’s withdrawel from reality. I think more and more voters are picking up on this, and it will cost him next Tuesday. I actually was surprised that the Dems didn’t capitalize and use Bush’s “flipflop” in their campaign ads.
In poll after poll, prospective voters name Iraq as the No. 1 issue in the upcoming midterm elections.
Yes, the overflow of media coverage on the Iraq matter has convinced some but I believe, not the majority, that this is the single and only important issue worth ranting about. Although I do consider the Iraq issue very important there are some other issues out there that the media is conveinently neglecting to mention. One of these is the economy. The liberal bias in the media continues to grow even though a lot of americans are turning them off or not buying their newspapers. Us conservatives are very thankful for the internet so we can search and find out the the conservative opinions on matters and we are also thankful for the popularity of conservative talk radio. And most of all Fox News.
Remember when Slick was in office and the stock market broke 11,000 points? You would have thought the man bought all the liberals a new car. The media didnt shut up about it for days. Well, guess what? We are fighting terroists and the stock market keeps breaking records. Haven’t you heard?