A Vote of No Confidence
The American midterm elections are a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration. In a parliamentary system, these results would lead to a change in government; in our presidential system it should lead to a change in policy. Whether this occurs will determine whether Bush remains relevant to the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy.
When all the votes are finally counted, it is likely that the Democrats will not only have swept the House but the Senate as well, giving them complete control of the congressional agenda. But it doesn’t give them control of foreign policy, which under our system largely remains within the purview of the executive. So if there is going to be the change in policy that the voters demanded, it will have to come from the President doing what he has for 6 years insisted he won’t do — to change course.
The first sign of whether such change is forthcoming will be whether Bush accepts the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld — or demands it if Rumsfeld fails to offer it. Of course, Bush pledged to keep his secretary of defense before the election. But that was then, this is now. Remember, Bush also said that FEMA Director Michael Brown was doing “a heckova job” in responding to Hurricane Katrina — and Brown was gone days later.
The next sign of change must come in Bush’s Iraq policy. No factor weighed heavier in the Republican defeat at the polls than the voters’ deep dissatisfaction with the course of events in that country. Instead of staying the course, going full speed ahead, or getting the job done, Bush must opt for a different strategy. There will be some voices calling for a bipartisan commitment to send more troops in order to win, but there are no more troops to send and in a civil war like Iraq’s the only way to win is by choosing sides. Today, America’s goal cannot be victory; it must be to minimize the damage of its defeat.
That requires a clear and unambiguous commitment to disengage from the conflict. American troops should immediately move from the streets of Baghdad and Iraq’s other cities and into the safety of their barracks and bases. And then they should begin the steady process of withdrawing.
In the six to twelve months it will take for American troops to leave Iraq, the task of those troops that remain should be two-fold. First, they must deter and, if necessary, prevent direct foreign intervention into Iraq’s civil war — a war whose violence may well intensify in the months ahead. Second, they must watch for signs of Iraqi reconciliation — and be prepared to assist those forces of Iraqi unity if they show a determination to achieve the upper hand. Indeed, in the event (however unlikely) that the shock of American disengagement produces positive moves towards reconciliation, America must be prepared to slow or even halt the withdrawal of its troops in order to assist in that process.
Decisively changing course on Iraq will be job one for a new Bush foreign policy. Beginning to restore the world’s trust in America must be next. That requires that America begins to behave in ways that are consistent with its professed ideals — ensuring due process for those accused of terrorism and other crimes, abandoning any thought of mistreating prisoners (however horrible their crimes), allowing an independent judiciary to review and decide all cases, and accepting the applicability of international agreements like the Geneva Accords to all detainees held in U.S. custody. The new Democratic Congress can take the first step by amending the Military Commissions Act passed just prior to the elections and removing its most odious and un-American aspects.
It also requires that Washington starts taking some of the world’s concerns more seriously. When a nation representing four percent of the world’s population consumes a quarter of its energy resources, then that nation has a responsibility to address the negative consequences of such consumption. America must act forcefully to curtail greenhouse gas admissions and to reduce its dependence on oil, not only because others would like it to, but because it is in the fundamental interest of all Americans to do so.
Other changes in policy are necessary — reengaging actively in Mideast diplomacy and being prepared to talk unconditionally to countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea are two that immediately come to mind. And these policy changes must be accompanied by a change in attitude — which requires a willingness to work with others to achieve desired ends. America is an important actor in the world, but it cannot achieve most of what it wants by itself. It needs the help of others, and should now commit itself to working together to address the many challenge that confront them all.
I'm surprised you mentioned so little about personnel changes - to me, it's the first thing that needs to happen if Bush is going to change course in foreign policy.
De-Cheneyization is needed, and for self-evident reasons I think it's unlikely. But even so, the Dems are now in position to contain the worst excesses of the Bush thugs, and we'd surely owe them a debt of gratitude if they can keep a lid on things for the next two years.
November 8, 2006 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
is anyone watching the paper shredders in dc?
November 8, 2006 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney is a re-elected Vice President, isn't he. How could he be removed?
November 8, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points Ivo...
The way I see it is the dems have more say in our foreign policy than might be apparent. They now have the power of subpoena and the purse. With the power of the purse being most important. They control the funding for the Iraq War/occupation. They can choose to defund part or all of it. Pelosi said she would not go the way of pulling all funding for the war because all that would do is hurt the troops. But she still does have the power to do so.
But this election should send a clear message that the American people demand change in our Iraq policy. The question is whether Bush will heed the will of the American people or not. I don't know about you Ivo, but having watched the way Bush governed for the last 6+ years, I think he will try to ignore the will of the people and do it his way...trying to keep the dems locked out of the process. He might try to change policy but all the changes will be on his terms in his perfect world.
In terms of our energy consumption...I agree something has to be done for environmental, economic and strategic reasons. If there is change it will happen with the administration kicking and screaming. Bush/Cheney have gone out of their way to advance the economic interests of the energy corporations and the administration doesn't think the problem of over-consumption is what is wrong with our energy policies...they just think our corporations are not allowed to produce enough (hence more ANWR drilling and Gulf of Mexico exploration are the answers as far as they are concerned).
Bush really needs to change course for the sake of his party (and more importantly for America) but I don't know if he is capable of doing that. If he doesn't change course what just happened at the polls will happen again in '08...so I see the real battle being between Bush (and his now lame duck hubris) and the RNC (fearing for their electoral future). So the way I see it is that the dems will have a say for the next 2 years and if they don't they will be calling all the shots after '08...
November 8, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
De-Cheneyization is metaphorical...
In practice, he could resign, rather like his old friend Rumsfeld just has. Or he could be marginalized by Bush.
I just think it is very important that his influence is curbed in order for us to see some serious changes in foreign policy.
November 8, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Late update -
From the Bush press conference:
Q: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
A: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. [...yada yada yada...]
Look at Bush's answer - he's being asked about Rumsfeld's resignation, and he slips in that at the time he couldn't give an answer regarding the the SecDef or Veep's future.
Cheney's job, right now, is on the line. His fate is in the hands of Bush Snr's consiglieres, and there's plenty of them that would happily knife Cheney.
De-Cheneyization, people... you heard it here first.
November 8, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, these are all good new directions but, as you say, foreign policy is still pretty much the prerogative of the President in our system. So the Dems could try to make changes in direction but then have it vetoed by Bush? It could definitely present a way to isolate him and his closest Republican supporters.
As for energy, why not a real serious discussion with China? In all the dancing around about Iraq it's never discussed that we were (and are) in a major competiton with the Chinese over exploration and new production for oil and gas in Iraq and the Middle East generally. Saddam Hussein had given the Chinese new leases for oil development in the south of Iraq just weeks before our invasion. Similarly, weeks before our invasion of Iraq in 1991, the Chinese and Saudi Arabia normalized relations and began discussions of major oil shipments (and development).
Regarding our consumption of energy, why not embrace the Kyoto concept? If there was a real meaty treaty on global energy use and pollution, and both the USA and China were signatories (and the silly "developing nation" loophole is eliminated) we could have real leverage over the Chinese, something we no longer have on gassy issues such as "human rights."
"Where the bulk of the population cannot read, true democracy is impossible." -- Bertrand Russell
November 8, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it is the subpeona power that is the most important right now Libertine.
The Democrats will be very reluctant to yank funding for the war while the troops are in the field, but they have a tremendous opportunity to use hearings to change the national discussion on Iraq, to clarify the public's understanding of what is actually going on there, to refocus the consideration of options on realistic exit strategies, to lay out the full extent of the war's human and financial costs and to create so much public pressure on Bush - even from his own party - that his hand will ultimately be forced, just as it was with Rumsfeld.
Republicans have spent three and a half years working to keep accurate reports away from public ears. That can all change now. There are Middle East experts all over the country and the world who can testify powerfully and convincingly about the war's spectacularly awful consequences for US interests in the Middle East, and for the well-being of the people in the region. These people have not been given a high-profile platform to make their case, and almost all the negative analysis the public has received about the consequences of the war has dribbled out in sporadic leaks.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the public has in effect just voted, in the only way open to them, to relieve him of his command. Democrats should move aggressively to sieze control of US Iraq policy.
November 8, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney will resign before the Spring of 07. He will be replaced by one of three people.
Frist- If the RNC decides their best bet at holding the executive in 08 is a southern strategy.
Romney- If the RNC comes to the conclusion that he can regain their standing with white evangelicals.
Rudy- if the RNC comes to the conclusion that their only hope is a move to the center.
Whichever strategy emerges, the man who gets the nod will be there for one reason- to use the OVP as campaign headquarters, exploiting the virtually free travel and bully pulpit in an attempt to gain traction for 08.
November 8, 2006 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo
Last Sunday on Hardball the reporter from the Financial Times said at least Europe would be looking at this election. The implication being that Europeans wanted to see if Americans understood their concnerns. Do you think this was true and do you believe the outcome will effect international attitudes toward the United States?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 8, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, one serious problem with your idea:
A Democratic Senate would need to approve the nomination.
That won't happen.
November 8, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
De-Cheneyization is needed
and what a disaster that would be.
We need Cheney right where he is, so that the clear symbol of corruption, venality, abuse of power and the father of lies is right there where we can see him.
November 8, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel --
The temptation will be strong in Europe and elsewhere to see in this election both a vindication of their view that Bush was wron and they were right and that things will now change to their liking. The first is, of course, true and it should help people's view of America to know that a good majority of the American people feel the same way about Bush and his policies as they do -- a rather different message than 2004. At the same time, the expectation that things will change dramatically and to their benefit (which is very high, if the many press calls I'm getting on this here in Italy are an indication) is surely misplaced. Even if we see the kind of changes in US policy that I would hope we will see, their likely to fall short of what folks in Europe expect or think is necessary.
Ivo Daalder
November 8, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many things that the Congress could do but as you point out none of it would be binding and likely would be vetoed...and I doubt anything in the foreign affairs area could be passed with a veto-proof margin. But a clear alternative to Bush is something to build on...and the Congress would give us a chance to set the agenda, discuss what we feel is important and make Bush have to veto it.
But I think the Congress should address these issues anyways. Kyoto, China, Iran, alternative energy sources, etc. and set forth that alternative agenda It would serve them well to do so for, if for no other reason, the '08 elections.
November 8, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Dan. I was making a point that the power of the purse might be the most important power they have if they chose to they could stop the president's Iraq policy right in it's tracks. I don't think they would ever do that nor would I ever hope they use that option.
But the power of the purse can be used in tandem with subpoena power. When they pass military appropriation bills they can specifically say where the money should go and then have the power of oversight to make sure the money is being spent as they see fit. Hearings into our foreign policy and how it is being conducted (with the threat of subpoena if the Executive refuses) is probably a good direction to go to ensure the dems have more input. Yes the dems should use the power of oversight to force the president listen to the will of the people and hold him accountable to the people if he refuses to listen...
November 8, 2006 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld - gone, supplanted by a '41' insider...
Cheney goes? - supplanted by?
Who is left, from '41' to correct/advise/put the thumb on, '43'
43 is lost now... he can't turn to anyone now for advice except, ?Barbara?
or; is James Baker now calling the shots?...God help us, condsidering the tangled relationships of three generations of Middle East Comedy/Tragedy theatre, put on by so many theatre companies with so mant producers!
November 8, 2006 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Decisively changing course on Iraq will be job one for a new Bush foreign policy. Daalder
And what "course," pray tell, have we been on? Do you mean "strategy"? "tactics"? "goal"?
Bush's "goal" and the country's hope remain the same -- Victory in Iraq, which is solely a problem of definition. Whether the goal is actual or rhetorical, in the absence of a stable Iraq -- an unlikely prospect over the next couple of years -- any troop withdrawal would make meeting the goal less likely. Therefore, troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq [they may well be withdrawn from population centers], and a Democratic Congress would be foolish to let the Republicans hang this albatross around its neck by demanding withdrawal and taking on the onus of defeat.
Rather than talking about Iraq, Democrats should be talking about American values and how the War on Terror can be fought successfully without sacrificing those values.
November 8, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is exactly this! That Republicans plan to blame everything for the next two years on Democrats. They are not at all interested in real bi-partisanship.They're interested in getting revenge in 2008. Grover Norquist has unveiled his plan, which basically involves blocking everything the Democrats want to try and then blaming them for gridlock and the failure in Iraq.
But, the problem of the "Dolchstosslegend" [the stab-in-the-back legend] is real.
In 1918, Gen Hindenburg concluded that their last ditch effort to achieve victory had failed and that the German army faced inevitable defeat. He advised the Kaiser to call the Socialist President Ebert to power and then resigned. The Socialists were forced to take responsibility for German surrender, although they had totally be shut out of power during the war.
Then in the 1920s Hitler began campaining on the theory that Germany hadn't really lost, that they were "stabbed-in-the-back" by the Jews and "November criminals" [Socialists]. It was all pure fantasy of course and everyone who knew anything knew it.
But, millions believed it anyway because a pretty lie is more attractive than a bitter truth and Hitler rose to power.
This is Bush's failed war. Democrats need to avoid accepting responsibility for his failure and then have Republicans blame them for the stab-in-the-back that "betrays our troops and denied us victory." Bush's still the commander-in-chief and it's up to him to change strategy. Realistically, Democrats can't force Bush to bring the troops home. They will never simply vote to cut off funding, that's not an option.
But, they can demand that Bush come up with a strategy to withdraw whether he wants to or not and they can keep hammering him if he refuses to do so. His power to resist is growing weaker by the day as more and more Americans turn against the war and conclude that it wasn't worth fighting in the first place. 57% now hold that view and want the troops to come home, either immediately or partially over the next year. Bush may not be running for re-election again (as Cheney arrogantly pointed out), but Republican legislators ARE and they don't want to face the voters again after supporting the President on Iraq.
They're going to look around over the next two years and remember many of their collegues who aren't there anymore. They don't want to ever have to go through another election like this one. It would totally and permanently destroy the Republican party. So, ultimately they are going to demand changes in Iraq too (they'll just try to blame Democrats for the changes).
Conclusion: We can and will force Bush to end this war.
November 8, 2006 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from Senate Duty, the VP has no official duties surrounding the Office of the President. So GWB ought to take away his staff, his office in the West Wing, his passes and security clearances, and of course all the "missions and assignments" plus Air Force #2, and give him a box of all day grape and cherry all day suckers so he has something to teeth on in the VP's room up at the Capitol. As Garner said after serving with FDR for 8 years, the office is not worth a bucket of warm spit. So return it to that status.
Carter-Mondale and Clinton-Gore actually made the office a partnership, with the VP being a second to the President. Bush-Cheney have made it into a CEO-COO arrangement, and that is not constitutionally Kosher. The President must be the Chief Operating Officer as well as the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief.
Relocating the VP to the Hill Office, and taking away any White House offices or connections to supervising EOP staff should be fundamental as a reform.
Above all this is a question that should be asked early on of any and all candidates who put themselves forward.
November 9, 2006 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the "having leverage over" other nations is at the heart of America's foreign policy problems.
November 9, 2006 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree totally with one minor exception.
I am not quite sure if folks in Europe really expects anything at all.
Hopes, yes, that's right, but I quess very few expects much from the U.S. at this point - at least nothing that's good or right or needed.
Americans abroad, even as profilic as Ivo Daalder, will surely encounter the question again and again, but my hunch is that it's raised rather to confirm the feeling that there actually is very little to expect from America with regard to important matters such as for instance international stability and the survival of humanity in face of Global Warming, looming ice ages, Climat Change, and whatever tensions they may trigger.
November 9, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink