With the fog of elections out of the way, the world is sighing with relief that the shortsighted cabal led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld has met its Waterloo. But their successors are not necessarily wiser although they do favor different tactics to achieve key foreign policy goals.
European observers expect political deadlock and squabbling in both Congress and Senate. There is little reason to believe that the sun of bi-partisan decision-making has suddenly dawned on Washington. There has been too much vituperation, bitterness and mud slinging to give hope of an about face towards common sense free from ideological baggage.
All eyes are on Jim Baker but he is no savior. He differs from Cheney, Rumsfeld et al mainly as far as he advises direct negotiations with enemies, including Iran and North Korea. But his overall goals are similar. He, too, wants to bolster America as the world’s eternal military and economic Super Power. His tactics are different only in the sense that he arouses fear in foreign hearts in a less domineering way.
Baker is willing to use all means necessary to dissuade or stop any new country from acquiring nuclear weapons. Therefore, the confrontation with Iran and North Korea is unlikely to exhibit signs of compromise. The US may finally talk directly to those two countries but it could be just a dialogue of the deaf.
Politically, Baker is a proud Republican and a strategist who has always sought to keep Democrats in the back seat of US politics. Under his influence, the best expectation is that the White House will use nimbler footwork rather than the Karl Rovian sledgehammer to put Republicans into position for the 2008 Presidential elections.
In the interim, Republicans will try to demonstrate to voters that Democrats run a divisive Congress and Senate while Democrats may be tempted to prove that President Bush is a lame duck. On domestic issues, such as taxes, energy conservation and immigration, they may pick holes in anything the White House or the House Republicans offer.
If the Democrats cooperate on bipartisan successes, the credit will go to Bush for reaching out across the divide. That could reinforce Republican chances for retaining the Presidency in 2008.
On Iraq, the Democrats are no wiser than Bush. They use different words for the hackneyed policy of standing down American intervention as Iraqi forces stand up. But how to stand up Iraqi forces without bleeding more American youth and treasure?
However severe the US pressure to put its house in order, Iraq’s government is in no position to defeat militias because neither its police nor army has heavy weapons. The US is too distrustful of its loyalties to supply such weapons.
Therefore, no local battles can be won without the help of US troops, satellite-based intelligence and arms. That implies US military presence in Iraq for many more years. The Green Zone is being reinforced to house 8,000 people, like a fortified American life-style haven within a devastated city.
At this time, there are no feasible exit scenarios, however elegant the words used to disguise this from the American people. Pinning too much hope on Baker is imprudent. He is a tactician, not an Alexander or Hector.
A few days ago, Britain’s Tony Blair pointed out again that no safe exit is possible without bringing Syria and Iran into talks for a wider security deal with the US. And no lasting Middle East peace is possible without restarting discussion to settle the Palestinian question.
Democratic control of Congress and Senate has not brought the US closer to these directions.