US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is to resign as the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives, and Senate power hangs on a tight race in the state of Virginia (where it seems they are also likely to lose). On tuesday, the Democrats have not only won the House of Representatives but may also have achieved what was nearly unthinkable... win the Senate. On tuesday President Bush's Republican Party paid the price at the polls for the desastrous policies of the Bush administration in Iraq and at home. Yet, it will have taken some six years to defeat them, and in the meantime the Bush administration will be in power for 8 year. How was this possible?
The resignation of the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shows how much the Bush administration is in disarray about Iraq. As Stephen D. Julias and Max Fraad Wolff wrote in an article published in the Asia Times, the US should be ready now "to face the world anew". I say the Bush adminisytration is forced to change attitude in order to survive and so that the Republican party might have any chance in the coming presidential elections.
Julias and Wolff wrote in the Asia Times, "The George W Bush era began with withdrawal from multilateral agreements and lively pronouncement of Pax Americana's historical mission and might. Allies were icing on a global cake of the United States' baking and for the United States' eating. This was to be showcased to a timid world by ending "rabid" Middle Eastern regimes bent on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and blessing minions with the virtues of democracy. This vision, mission and method have now failed so dramatically as to be unsustainable for the US president and his remaining allies." (...) "Once it hurts the US domestic base and, thus, re-election prospects, it's time for a change. Sacrifice remains the duty of others." (...)
And they continue "The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Baker and Lee H Hamilton, will conclude that the US needs to make deals with Syria, Iran and the rest of a timid world to assure that the US can escape Iraq without a total loss of its long-term interest. Gone will be the stated policy of liberty and democratic revolution in the Middle East. The continued economic costs in lives, prestige and perceived omnipotence are simply unacceptable. A new, cost-controlled cooperative agenda will be announced as allowing the US to meet its real central objectives and move on to victory in the "war on terror". "
"Why the change?", they ask. Simply because "The war in Iraq and its subsequent nation-building exercise have created a direct cost to the American taxpayer of about US$340 billion to date. Not only has this large investment not yielded the promised returns, the costs sunk in this situation are climbing with every continued minute of the United States' involvement." And it goes on: "The human costs are staggering. This is true for US forces, contractors and families and for Iraqis in general. Economist Brad DeLong estimates that for every month the war in Iraq is extended, the human bill is about 100 American soldiers killed, 500 American soldiers maimed and perhaps 4,000 Iraqis dead. ". Yet these are low estimates (see previous post on estimates for the number of deaths in Iraq made by Lancet magazine).
"In short, the US federal government has overspent and over-borrowed like there was no tomorrow." (...) "Although the details of the war's costs or the nation's overall financial position may not be general knowledge, every American senses that something is profoundly wrong. This unease takes palpable form in nightly pictures broadcast from Iraq and stagnating middle-class paychecks in the face of skyrocketing bills. Voter concern is clearly demonstrated in state reporting of record voter registrations for the traditionally low-turnout mid-term elections."
"The United States today is perceived as a superpower in decline having failed in Iraq, abandoned allies and forsaken its democratic principals. This demands and will get a radical strategic change no matter which party emerges dominant from the mid-term elections. The war in Iraq has become a focal point of anger for the average American voter and throughout the world. Anger over income, opportunity and wage inequality in the United States and US economic and political decision-making around the world are now focused on Bush and US action in Iraq. This has finally become clear to business and political leadership."
On tuesday the feelings of the North-american voters becamle clear and the departure of Rumsfeld is also a sign that finally things are getting clear to the political leadership, i.e. the Republicans. Bush will be forced to change policies and maybe focus more on internal politics. The task in the coming years up to the presidential elections will be hard though... But what can change? The Iraq Study Group will probably take over Iraq planning and advising. New policy options will certainly have to contradict the rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The US will get back to multilateral diplomacy and will propbably have to engage in talkings with countries like Syria and even Iran. Things will change, they have to change, yet it will take time to make up for the time lost.
Julias and Wolff conclude: "The US will attempt to refocus global and domestic attention and rebuild. (...) Given the sensitive state of the US macroeconomy, looming government budget issues and America's diminished power position in the Middle East, there is no real other choice. Thus we conclude that a dramatic policy shift is certain and the most important outcome of the mid-term elections."
Read further:
"Shift coming in US policy on Iraq", Christian Science Monitor article.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire