President Bush

Although he denies it, it is often said that Karl Rove’s political idol is Mark Hanna the Ohio political boss who was the power behind the throne of William McKinley’s presidency which ushered in an era of GOP predominance in the White House that lasted from the turn of the old century to FDR’s election in 1932. What is not in dispute is the hope that Rove had for building an enduring Republican majority for the first part of the twenty-first century. This majority was to be built on holding onto the old Reagan Democrats on cultural issues and reaching out to potentially new GOP voters among more successful Latinos and he wanted to use big government to do it. This was to be the essence of “compassionate conservatism”.

McCain vs. Markets

So Rove and Bush never made any concerted effort to tackle the spending side of the equation in their budgets and Bush most tellingly never saw fit to raise his veto pen when the profligate 109th Congress was porking and corrupting its way into oblivion. The Social Security reform plan was designed to appeal (as it should have) to younger voters and move them into the GOP column by allowing them to invest a portion of their FICA withholding taxes in private accounts which over a lifetime of work would have provided the basis for real wealth as opposed to the pittance returned by Treasury securities in traditional SS. The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, the largest expansion of a federal entitlement program since Medicare’s adoption in 1965, was likewise designed to expand government to the betterment of the GOP politically. And now the dream lies amidst the likely rubble that will be the results electorally for the GOP on Tuesday November 4th.

Now it is arguable that there are many reasons for this. The difficulty of any party retaining its dominance for a period of nearly thirty years as has been enjoyed by the Republicans since Reagan’s first term. And most importantly an economic situation that in its severity always cuts against the party holding the White House. Yet I believe the primary reason is one thing and one thing only and that is the Iraq war. Because while Iraq is now tenuously looking much better and which as a result has taken this issue (the worst for Obama) off the table for the most part as a political issue the war itself is what drove George Bush’s approval ratings into the cellar and along with them much of the GOP’s as well. As Iraq exploded in 2005 any political capital the president had would remained deployed to try and shore up support in the Congress for the war and keep Iraq from turning into another Vietnam. That he succeeded in this against long odds is to his everlasting credit but it bankrupted him for the domestic arena and the attempt to reform Social Security.

How much of the failure of US policy in Iraq prior to the turnaround in ‘06 can be placed at Rove’s feet? That’s an open question that will only be answered by historians down the round but I believe a hint might be available now. Rove assumed his position as Deputy Chief of Staff for domestic affairs shortly after the president’s second inaugural. In that position he was to have a policymaking role for all matters related to domestic affairs including the economy. While I have no proof to back up my suspicions it would seem to follow that instead of reasonably asking for some sacrifices from the American people from a financial standpoint in order to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rove’s idea of a “guns and butter” approach would have been wholly in keeping in what he considered to be the key to keeping voters happy with the GOP brand. Further, how much can the Fed’s disastrous cheap money policies which contributed to the inflation of the housing bubble be attributed to Rove? Again, I honestly don’t know but what I do know is that this administration’s penchant for borrowing has been enormous.

Unfortuntately for him, John McCain’s shoehorning into the Rove box has proven an uncomfortable fit. McCain, whose instincts are more Rooseveltian (Teddy) than Rovian, in order to placate GOP mossbacks, has been forced into a schizoid general election campaign that echos as a pale imitation of the same old same old standby Bush has practiced. Instead of swinging for the fences with a truly audacious plan like calling for a broadly based carbon tax to be offset by cuts in FICA taxes that would have the dual benefit of both spurring investment in alternative energy sources and giving working and middle class taxpayers real relief from the most regressive of our taxes, McCain is losing the tax issue to a Democrat which is something unheard of for a Republican. And McCain finds himself falling in the polls virtually in lockstep with the decline in the equities markets. Maybe this was simply too much for McCain to overcome but there is no denying that he missed a signal opportunity to point the party in a new direction as I pointed out nearly ten months ago in The McCain Moment and the Future of the GOP. So in this election cycle Republicans find themselves of being in a position to hope only for classic overreach on the part of Democrats that might restore their hopes in 2010’s midterm elections. It’s a far cry from the high hopes that Karl Rove and George Bush believed was theirs for the taking eight years ago.

Unlike the previous Gulf War, the United States mustered a smaller coalition of nations willing to engage in the liberation of Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Much has been made of the weaknesses in the international alliance, in so far as it did not include powers such as Germany and France, two pivotal players on the European mainland. Germany and France, for reasons cultural, strategic, and financial, where unwilling to work with the Bush administration’s stated goals for dealing with Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, and this has plagued relations between the U.S. and its traditional allies in Europe since.

Yet, other European nations bucked the leadership coming from the old continental forces. A number of these “new” European states were formerly members of the communist Eastern-bloc, and sided with the American mission to topple Iraq’s totalitarian government and establish a democracy in its remains. One of the key nations in this union was Poland, lead by Aleksander Kwasniewski’s government, which headed the nation between 1995 and 2005. (more…)

I must confess: I was completely against the War in Iraq from the beginning. It felt so…reckless. Right off the bat, I had the ominous sense that things hadn’t been thought through. Unfortunately, I was right.  My neocon brethren had rushed too quickly, or perhaps there were too many differing views on how the War should be carried out, or….

Maybe Rumsfeld’s vision of a New American Military was too ambitious or naive or visionary…I’m not sure. I wasn’t there. All I know, is that I felt we should have handled Hussein similarly to how the Israelis did in 1981. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. Well it’s too late for the “walk softly” part. So what about that stick?

We diverted massive resources away from graver threats, such as Iran and Syria, and North Korea. Oh, and Afghanistan, while not really a threat anymore, was and still is unfinished business.  So entering Iraq was not really defensible, even if the blame for that can’t be laid solely at the feet of the Administration–many a Democrat participated in the march to war.   Invading Iraq wasn’t in our best interest at the time.

It wasn’t in our best interest and it certainly wasn’t in the best interest of Israel, either.  Many critics of the so-called “Israel Lobby” claim America always acts in the best interests of Israel, or that Iraq was somehow a war for Israel, but that is purely absurd as can be seen here and here.  Besides, it’s not hard to see that an unstable region is bad for Israel.  A weak Saddam is better than a strengthened Iran.  America often does work to benefit Israel, which makes sense.  We have common allies and common foes.  Many Americans are also Israeli citizens.  We share commerce, technology, and have an intelligence relationship rivaled only by the one we share with the United Kingdom.

Well What About Now?

Now that we’re in Iraq we need to decide how to get out of Iraq. Nobody wants to be there anymore, least of all the soldiers who have to risk their necks every day to try to make the world safer. There are many schools of thought on this subject, but the two most popular are:

1. Begin withdrawing troops and funds immediately. The only way the Iraqis will ever solve their problems is if we let them hash it out. Like a crowd letting a fight continue with breaking it up. “Eventually they’ll tire out, you’ll see.” Eventually….

or,

2. Continue the “surge” and maintain troop levels and funds until the job is done. Nobody is quite in agreement on what “the job” is that needs to get done, but several things are agreed upon:

• The Iraqis need a stable political system and a government than can actually operate on its own. To get here, they obviously need a stable and secure enough country in which to operate said government.
• A solution to the Civil War has to be political, and this will be heavily influenced by economic factors such as the division of oil profits; the autonomy of the Kurds; and the under-representation of the once politically dominant Sunni Muslims.
• No political aims will ever be achieved in a state of chaos, which is likely if too many American troops are withdrawn before Iraqi security forces can take over.
• That’s going to take time and money, and its going to take its tole in lives as well.

What’s the result of our early withdrawal?   Will the Iraqi people simply duke it out–and when the punches stop, and the dust settles, will they help each other up like two spent boxers and shake hands?

Doubtful.

The only reason there wasn’t Civil War under Saddam was that he provided security and stability. Of course, he did so with brutal and inhumane tactics, but nevertheless, the various groups were able to live together relatively peacefully. I think what most Iraqi’s want is running water, roofs over their heads, a steady paycheck, and no lines at the gas pump. It is the minority that wants death, suicide bombings, and constant chaos.

The problem with Option #1–our early withdrawal–is that I don’t think it will give the moderate majority time to do what they need to do - cast out the radicals and retake the country.  A moderate majority is easily cowed by a radical minority–especially one so well armed and well-funded by hostile Iranian and Syrian interests. So the only option to create a political solution in which the moderates win and the radicals lose, is to stay and provide the necessary peace-keeping and security that only American troops can provide, at least until Iraqi troops can take over.

Too bad NATO and the UN decided not to help. More peace-keeping forces are needed until the Iraqis can take the reigns. Until such time, though, we need to “stay the course” because it’s the only humane thing to do, now that we’re here. I wish we’d been wiser in the beginning, but at least we can be wise, and humane, now.