| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Back to the Seventies |
| 2006-11-08 |
| I hope this assessment is too pessimistic. Elections have global consequences. By James S. Robbins The outcome of the 2006 midterm elections will have serious consequences for the war on terrorism and U.S. national security generally. If you liked the foreign-policy impotence of the 1970s, get ready for more. There will be strong sentiment among some Democrats to cut funding for the Iraq war completely. They probably won’t do that right away, since the president would surely veto the bill if it is too extreme. It would also appear reckless to the large portion of the electorate that was not motivated by antiwar fervor. Yet, they will not allow funding to continue to grow, and will probably seek a major reduction. This will undoubtedly be couched in terms of “reorienting priorities” in the war on terrorism — shifting funds from Iraq to what will be called “homeland security” expenditures, actually rewards to their urban base. They will also push through largely symbolic funding measures for the hunt for Osama bin Laden so that if he turns up any time in the next two years they can claim credit. (Note to Dems: Increase the reward. We spend $10 million an hour in Iraq. Even an Iraq-war supporter of my solid credentials can see trading a day of that effort for a quarter-million dollar reward for Osama, a level that might get the attention of the warlords giving him safe haven.) The war effort will also be hampered since Pentagon is about to be hit by a rash of investigations as Democrats pay back the Angry Left part of their base with ritual humiliation of the architects of the war. One would guess that Secretary Rumsfeld would be a prime target, though others who have been in the Building since 2003 will also be on the list. Someone will have to go down. In a piece last May (anticipating this unfortunate development — sad to be right) I compared this election to 1874, when the Democrats took the House for the first time since the Civil War, in the middle of President Grant’s second term. Among others, they went after the secretary of War, William W. Belknap, who was impeached on bribery charges in 1876. Note that Belknap had already resigned before he was impeached, which set an interesting constitutional precedent. He was saved from conviction by the Republican controlled Senate, but the damage had been done. Of course, Belknap probably had committed crimes, unlike Secretary Rumsfeld, with whom the Democrats only have policy differences. It will be a measure of their radicalism if they seek to trump up some charges about deceiving the American people in the lead-up to war, a belief that has already been investigated several times and found to be baseless. But reality will take a back seat to political expediency; hearings and investigations will commence primarily because the Democrats will have the subpoena power. One fears for the covert aspects of the war on terror, which are both necessary and beneficial. The “opposition by leak” technique that has hitherto been the m.o. will be replaced with formal hearings, the dominant motif being grandstanding with extreme umbrage. The model will be the Church/Pike hearings of the 1970s that discredited the intelligence community and rendered the United States helpless in the face of the threats we faced back then from international communism and rising radicalism in for example Iran. This too can’t be overplayed, since Democrats would be blamed for the inevitable reverses we would face overseas and perhaps at home (if a domestic attack followed their all out assault on our covert warriors it would not look good). But the 1970s hearings got out of control to the point where even the Democrat managers had to warn against the proliferation of leaks and the damage being done to the intelligence community. Too late by then, of course, the damage was done. It will be again. Guantanamo and the other places in which terrorist detainees are held will come under serious scrutiny with the intent of closing them down. The administration might consider preempting this move by releasing more information on the detainees, who by and large are violent radicals who would just as soon kill Americans as look at them. The Democrats might overplay their hand on this one, moving boldly to cater to their hard-Left base and finding that as Americans learn more about Guantanamo they will approve of what is going on there. But the approach to the issue will still fit within the framework of time wasting distractions undertaken chiefly for political motives, and distracting energy from the war effort. My greatest fear is that this Republican loss will be seen by our adversaries as a great victory. In the past year, U.S. resolve has been tested, and sadly we have not always risen to the occasion. We could be facing a replay of the end game in Vietnam, when insurgent leftists in the Democratic party brought about the defunding of military assistance for South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese invaded and defeated our trusting ally. This has already been predicted by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nazrallah, and noted as a model for success by al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. The rest of the decade saw the nadir of American power in the Cold War, a period when the Soviet Union could justly be said to be winning. As we focus inward on recriminations and political maneuvers, other rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran, will sense that now is the time to press their various foreign policy and security agendas. The United States faces the possibility of becoming again what President Nixon called “a pitiful, helpless giant” in face of the forces arrayed against us. Maybe the Democratic party will surprise us by showing a rare degree of bipartisan statesmanship in time of war, but I would not bet on it. — James S. Robbins is author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point , and is currently writing a book on the Tet Offensive. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #10 "We won WWII with the Truman Committee in full force." ...because Truman studied the Committee on the Conduct of War's transcripts to learn what NOT TO FREAKING DO! Also, FDR happened to be a Democrat. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-11-08 23:03 |
| #9 We knew. We knew that about 52% of Americans would make the effort to waddle on down to their local official polling site to cast a vote. |
| Posted by: AT 2006-11-08 21:07 |
| #8 What a load of panicky eyewash - it sounds like a dKos diarist moaning about the Bushitler fascist state. Yes, the GOP lost. Yes, a Dem-controlled House will ask a few (OK, a lot) more questions about what's going on than the GOP House has over the last six years. It's called oversight, and it's part of the original Constitutional plan. That rubber stamp performance is part of what got them tossed out. (And don't believe the Senate is going Dem until Lieberman actually casts his leadership vote - if Webb and Tester finally win, that will be a bidding war for the ages) We won WWII with the Truman Committee in full force. It's how Harry got prominent enough to be named VP and every GOP President for the last 25 years has held him up as some kind of paragon. Some oversight won't kill this war effort either. There are some moonbats out there rooting for the US and the West to lose, but damn few of them are in the US Congress or Senate. There are some different ideas at the table. Some of them won't work, but some of them might be an improvement. It won't be the end of the world. W is still in the White House and if the Dems are half this stupid in Congress they can be tossed out in 08 as easily as they were tossed in. |
| Posted by: Uneth Ebberese9488 2006-11-08 20:55 |
| #7 Folks when the Dems stand on the sidelines and throw darts, that all they are doing. Now they will be accountable for their decisions, they will slide to the right. Now they have to actually come up with a plan, not just be critical. The house and senate are so closely split they will never have the vote to overthrow a pres veto. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-08 20:27 |
| #6 OK, libhoky...Tell me how casey could possibly do better than Rick Santorum either in PA or on the national stage. Realize that casey had his spine removed years ago to please his dad, and, that just for this political season, opted to have his tongue removed as well. You losers now have your chance to excel. Fat chance. |
| Posted by: AT 2006-11-08 20:27 |
| #5 The new chair of the House Foreign Relations comm will be Rep Tom Lantos Do your homework. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-08 11:38 |
| #4 Dont be down in the dumps. The Man who will likely hold the balance in the US Senate is Sen Joe Lieberman. The new chair of the House Foreign Relations comm will be Rep Tom Lantos. The new Senator from Penn, is Casey, no leftie ideologue he. This isnt 1974. Not at all. Its a tack to the center, and what happens when a party has controlled the House of Reps for too long. Next up round 1 of battle for control of the Democratic soul. John Murtha vs Steny Hoyer for majority leader. Hoyer is an old DLC type - Murtha you know. If Hoyer loses to Murtha, then it will be time to panic. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-11-08 10:56 |
| #3 It's NOT Sep-10. We ALL know what happened on 9/11. When Democrats choose to give up Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamofascists, and to abandon Israel against Hizbullah, and to let Iran develop nukes and use them, they will be doing it in FULL CONTEXT. One cannot go back to 9/10. One can however refuse to fight back or one can surrender to the enemy. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-11-08 10:56 |
| #2 Until the next president. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-11-08 09:13 |
| #1 It's September 10 all over again. We're going back to treating terrorism as a criminal matter, a minor annoyance so long as nobody really important dies. If the jihadis are clever, they'll restrain themselves a bit, be satisfied with a cruise ship here and a jetliner there, a few hundred infedels at a time, and no attacks on US soil. Nothing the scale of 9/11, which might enrage the American street. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-11-08 06:39 |