Most political observers feel that next month's mid-term elections will be a referendum on Iraq, and even on the president's handling of that war. And considering the latest polling data, Republicans, who've been arguing "stay the course" for well over a year, should be worried.
According to the latest Newsweek poll, conducted just last week, a majority of Americans (54%) think that military action in Iraq was wrong, and 65% think the U.S. is losing ground in Iraq. And in a CNN poll, conducted two weeks ago, 64% of respondents said they oppose the war.
Perhaps with that in mind, this week the White House announced it will no longer use the term "stay the course" in discussions about Iraq. Press Secretary Tony Snow said the White House wants to emphasize its flexibility on achieving its goals and no longer wants to talk about sticking to one approach.
Timing is everything in politics, and with elections looming, its difficult to say if the president's timing couldn't be better, or worse. Does this change in semantics make the president seem as if he finally "gets it", or does it simply make him seem out of touch and out of step with the rest of the country?
While many Democrats running for office this fall have been calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, Republicans have consistently derided the idea as "cutting and running".
Meanwhile, polling data aside, the recent White House move was likely prompted by the fact that a commission backed by President Bush has agreed that 'stay the course' is not working and that a phased withdrawal is now on the table. While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III has agreed on one principle.
"It's not going to be 'stay the course,' " said one participant. "The bottom line is, [current U.S. policy] isn't working…. There's got to be another way."
In a recent television interview, Baker, a longtime Republican, Bush family ally, and Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, said, "There'll probably be some things in our report that the administration might not like."
Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and, incredibly, bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting. Iran, if you remember, was famously on President Bush's "axis of evil" list, along with Iraq and North Korea. Now the U.S. may use one "evil" nation to help subdue another.
While the president talks of "winning" in Iraq, many wonder just what exactly that means. To spell it out, communications strategists working with House Republicans circulated a three-page memo last week that describes winning as, "helping the Iraqis achieve stability and security and doing it as quickly and effectively as possible in order to bring our troops home.''
Of course that says nothing about democracy, which many thought the U.S. had been fighting for all along. But then again, the reasons for the war have changed numerous times. Now its about stability and security. Sometimes you take what you can get, if you can get anything at all.
According to Baker, instead of trying to bring democracy to all nations in the Middle East, the U.S. should define success as achieving "representative government, not necessarily democracy."
So much for good intentions. Perhaps we'll have to leave it to the history books to decide why over 2800 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq.
Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
We're a selfish, blaming society. No good deed goes unpunished.
One opinion I would like to bring forward is that yes, in a way this election is a referendum on Bush, but not in the way most are perceiving it to be.
President Bush has gotten a pass for most of the blunders of this war in Iraq up to this point. The detainee bill that was signed into law last month was for all intents a "get out of jail free" card for Bush and his Administration for their involvement in defying the Geneva Conventions, that the Supreme Court said pertained to the detainees at Gitmo. He and pretty much everyone else knows that he broke Article Three of said Conventions. By all accounts he could have been prosecuted for war crimes. So here he gets another free pass.
The American people do believe in accountability, of which there has been next to none. I believe the American people are doing the job that Congress abdicated six years ago. Since at this time they can not hold Bush accountable for his actions, they are going to hold Congress accountable for theirs. Then a Democratically controlled Congress may hold Bush & Co. accountable for his. Whether that is a conscious conclusion for some is debatable, but hopefully made true nonetheless. This Congress has not provided oversight, has raised our national debt to heights that will not be overcome for generations, and their actual attendance in Congress less and less every year. (What was it this year? Around 100 days for about $165,000. Public service ain't to shabby these days.) Not to mention Abramoff, and protecting Foley.
So honestly, I just don't care to hear about how this election is Bush's fault. It's the Republican Majorities fault for not doing the job our fore fathers intended them to do in the first place. That is why they are getting shut out.
Peace
"We were pleased to continue our consultations today. Via secure video, we discussed a range of issues of great importance to our common mission in Iraq, including the development of Iraqi security forces, efforts to promote reconciliation among all Iraqis, and the International Compact for Iraq and the economic reforms associated with it. As leaders of two great countries, we are committed to the security and prosperity of a democratic Iraq and the global fight against terrorism which affects all our citizens.
We have three common goals: accelerating the pace of training the Iraqi Security Force, Iraqi assumption of command and control over Iraqi forces, and transferring responsibility for security to the Government of Iraq. We have formed a high-level working group including the Iraqi National Security Advisor, Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior, General Casey, and Ambassador Khalilzad to make recommendations on how these goals can be best achieved. This working group will supplement existing mechanisms to better define our security partnership and enhance our coordination.
We are committed to the partnership our two countries and two governments have formed and will work in every way possible for a stable, democratic Iraq and for victory in the war on terror."
Wow... that sounds remarkably similar to what he said before we even went into Iraq in 2003. Gee. Could it be that the liberals will take any mumblings from a memo (which nobody will show in it's full context) that has to do with pre-election talking points for Republican candidates in regards to Iraq. I mean really, since when do liberals have any business criticizing how Republican's run an election campaign.
So to Sean Kennedy' article, don't believe everything you read. Sean's got an agenda, truth be damned. If you want to know what Bush's goals for an Iraq victory are, listen to George Bush, not a liberal writer out to get Bush.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061028-1.html
Why don't you back-up to the other articles and answer them. Or are you one of those fellas that run when the heat gets hot??? Wouldn't be surprised.
I can't wait until the evening of Nov. 7th. Even your Glorious Leader said that this election is a referendum on what the American people want from Washington. And guess what? You and your corrupt Party is going to be on the losing end of the stick this time.
Peace
Peace
That's the truth. You guys spin it one way, and you've done a great job a that. So Bush can no longer use it as a slogan as he did in the 2004 election. I don't really care what his slogan's are. I only care what his actions are - all this other stuff is hot air before an election cycle.
Peace
Your party is going down in flames again - take it to the bank. That check won't bounce.
Is it a bet then??? Hmmm??? Come on, you're so confident in those sources of yours, you ought to be jumping at the chance. Winner takes all!
Peace
On the other hand - and I'm an Independent, by the way -- much of the Republican leadership never served in the military. For example:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss (the man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism): did not serve. "Bad knee."
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
No one in American politics has an exclusive ownership of patriotism or service.
This war in Iraq was ill-conceived and ill-advised from the get-go, and that reality is finally sinking in to even its most staunch and ardent supporters after 3 1/2 years. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; this is an American issue.
Please, stop all the vitriol and hyberbole. It's disingenuous and doesn't help anyone.
That check is bouncing like no other Brother! Now if the Senate goes my way as it looks as it may... ;-)
Peace
The Dems will have to try to undo a big mess, and they may need a bi-partisan effort to achieve their goals. Hopefully the GOP has gotten the message and will get down to helping to legislate for the people.
In the first 100 hours, House Leader Pelosi has promised to do the following:
- Change ethics rules.
- Break the link between lobbyists and legislation.
- Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.
- Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
- Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
- Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
- Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.
After that:
- Take a "pay as you go" approach with the budget.
- Roll back the Bush tax cuts for people with annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year, and higher, to the rates of the Clinton era.
Much luck to all of our Congress people in doing the people's business. There's certainly much to do.
I'm a Libertarian, and if any of you haven't seen "America: Freedom to Fascism", do so immediately. It'll make you sick to your stomach about our government.
Our politicians in Washington are unnerving to be sure but they do work hard.
Great article, Sean - well written and right on point.