Post by Zoro on Nov 17, 2006 7:15:35 GMT -5
US Mid-Term Elections 2006 and the Republican Party
www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=4006#4006
The Republican defeat in the mid-term elections was expected, with control of both Houses being lost to the Democrats. This defeat for the Republicans is certainly significant in terms of what it indicates for both Parties’ prospects for the next Presidential Election, but perhaps of more significance is what it indicates in respect of the internal divisions within the Republican Party and within the Administration itself and how this might affect American foreign policy.
There has long been disagreement within the Republican Party over what is often called the ‘Neoconservative’ foreign policy of the Bush administration. The set of policies adopted by the Bush administration are perhaps more accurately described as being hard-line conservative policies rather than classic neoconservatism, but the policies adopted have been marked by a recognition of America’s pre-eminence on the world stage, a desire to maintain and build on that position and, perhaps most significantly, an aggressively militaristic approach to spreading the values of freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. This is combined with using American power to safeguard U.S. interests, and it could be argued that although this often takes precedence over fostering the spread of democracy, there is a clear and boldly ideological commitment to the extending of western values to non-western countries.
There is a clear contrast between the policies adopted by this administration and the policies adopted by the last Republican administration of Bush Snr. and his team, who pursued what is described as a classically traditional internationalist (sometimes called classical realist) approach to foreign policy. This approach is marked by a “proper mixture of force, diplomacy, and multilateralism” and differs to a more hard-line approach in that it “seeks to find common interests with other nations, regardless of whether or not they are democracies”. It is characterised by more of a willingness to accommodate other powers and nations if it is in America’s interest to do so, irrespective of their commitment to democracy and western values.
What has been exposed in the run up to these recent elections and in the fall out from these elections is the difference within the Republican Party in respect of these two different approaches to foreign policy issues. Although these differences have existed since Bush came to power, and since 9/11 in particular, the difference between the two camps is now so pronounced that it has spilled out into the public arena and is visible for all to see. It is the hard-line conservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and (former Deputy Secretary of Defense) Wolfowitz who have pushed forward these aggressive policies over the last seven years, with the old guard of the Republican Party having no choice but to watch from the sidelines as all that they feel they achieved in international relations was being undone in front of their eyes.
It is now clear that George W. Bush has accepted that his decision to take America to war in Iraq has been a failure at best and a complete disaster at worst. It has been a setback for American geo-political interests and has done enormous damage to America’s image abroad – the kind of damage that will take at least a generation to repair. America’s relations with many nations have deteriorated and it has also allowed other major regional powers (Russia and China in particular) to take advantage of the situation by increasing their regional and even international influence while America has been pre-occupied with occupying Iraq. This is not to mention the damage done domestically as opposition to the war increases with many thousands of American soldiers now being reported killed. It is also the case that those states that have doggedly supported America in its campaign in Iraq will now find it increasingly difficult to justify such a close relationship with America.
It is against this backdrop that George Bush has broken away from the ‘neocon’ / hard line conservative policies supported Rumsfeld, Cheney and others and has adopted the traditional internationalist approach of Bush Snr., James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Robert Gates etc.
This is a significant change of direction that can have considerable implications for the way in which America conducts herself on the world stage.
It is with George Bush’s blessing that the Iraq Study Group has been formed and been asked to “conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests.”
The Iraq Study Group (ISG) is chaired by James Baker and includes in its membership Lawrence Eagleburger (both of whom served as Secretary of State under Bush Snr.). Eagleburger has replaced Robert Gates (who served as CIA Director under Bush Snr.) who resigned from the ISG when he was nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. They all fall under the camp of the traditional internationalists and have been chosen for this reason. It is widely expected that the ISG will recommend some form of withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and a renewal of the policy of engaging with Iran and Syria for the purpose of helping to stabilise Iraq as American troops withdraw.
This is in clear contradiction of the policies favoured by Rumsfeld and Cheney and this is why Rumsfeld has been forced to resign, with increasing speculation that Cheney will also be forced to resign to allow either John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani to replace him and to run for the Presidency while occupying the office of Vice-President, though it seems forcing him out will be more difficult than Rumsfeld.
It was for this reason that George Bush publicly contradicted Cheney on the issue of using ‘waterboarding’ as a form of torture and Cheney made statements about “not looking for an exit strategy” in Iraq in the run-up to the elections. It was this difference in opinion that also led to four leading military publications calling on Rumsfeld to resign in the run up to the mid-terms elections (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times). Although the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military has always been a difficult one at best, criticism in the public domain has tended to be from retired senior officers. That same criticism of the strategy in Iraq has now been heard from serving officers and their semi-official mouthpieces.
Tony Blair has also now called on Iran and Syria to help bring stability to Iraq and forge a long-term peace in the wider Middle East and is expected to make the same call when he privately gives evidence to the Iraq Study Group today.
This departure from a hard-line conservative foreign policy to a traditional internationalist policy in America will have far reaching implications in the realm of international relations. The people and the policies that have driven American foreign policy since George Bush became President have been largely discredited and this is expected to continue. It is these people and policies that have been the engine that has driven America’s ‘war on terror’ both for America and for her allies, and this engine is now being stripped of its parts. It is not inconceivable that these policies will now be consigned to the dustbin of history and remembered only as a failed experiment that is never to be repeated. This does not however mean that America will cease to pursue her interests internationally or put less effort into maintaining her position as the pre-eminent global power.
Leading policy analysts are now calling not only for an end to the use of the term ‘war on terror’, but in fact what is effectively a strategic reversal in American policy from a commitment to regime change to a renewal of the polices of diplomacy and engagement. Foreign Affairs magazine has published an article that states that “the age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might”.
14 November 2006
www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=4006#4006
The Republican defeat in the mid-term elections was expected, with control of both Houses being lost to the Democrats. This defeat for the Republicans is certainly significant in terms of what it indicates for both Parties’ prospects for the next Presidential Election, but perhaps of more significance is what it indicates in respect of the internal divisions within the Republican Party and within the Administration itself and how this might affect American foreign policy.
There has long been disagreement within the Republican Party over what is often called the ‘Neoconservative’ foreign policy of the Bush administration. The set of policies adopted by the Bush administration are perhaps more accurately described as being hard-line conservative policies rather than classic neoconservatism, but the policies adopted have been marked by a recognition of America’s pre-eminence on the world stage, a desire to maintain and build on that position and, perhaps most significantly, an aggressively militaristic approach to spreading the values of freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. This is combined with using American power to safeguard U.S. interests, and it could be argued that although this often takes precedence over fostering the spread of democracy, there is a clear and boldly ideological commitment to the extending of western values to non-western countries.
There is a clear contrast between the policies adopted by this administration and the policies adopted by the last Republican administration of Bush Snr. and his team, who pursued what is described as a classically traditional internationalist (sometimes called classical realist) approach to foreign policy. This approach is marked by a “proper mixture of force, diplomacy, and multilateralism” and differs to a more hard-line approach in that it “seeks to find common interests with other nations, regardless of whether or not they are democracies”. It is characterised by more of a willingness to accommodate other powers and nations if it is in America’s interest to do so, irrespective of their commitment to democracy and western values.
What has been exposed in the run up to these recent elections and in the fall out from these elections is the difference within the Republican Party in respect of these two different approaches to foreign policy issues. Although these differences have existed since Bush came to power, and since 9/11 in particular, the difference between the two camps is now so pronounced that it has spilled out into the public arena and is visible for all to see. It is the hard-line conservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and (former Deputy Secretary of Defense) Wolfowitz who have pushed forward these aggressive policies over the last seven years, with the old guard of the Republican Party having no choice but to watch from the sidelines as all that they feel they achieved in international relations was being undone in front of their eyes.
It is now clear that George W. Bush has accepted that his decision to take America to war in Iraq has been a failure at best and a complete disaster at worst. It has been a setback for American geo-political interests and has done enormous damage to America’s image abroad – the kind of damage that will take at least a generation to repair. America’s relations with many nations have deteriorated and it has also allowed other major regional powers (Russia and China in particular) to take advantage of the situation by increasing their regional and even international influence while America has been pre-occupied with occupying Iraq. This is not to mention the damage done domestically as opposition to the war increases with many thousands of American soldiers now being reported killed. It is also the case that those states that have doggedly supported America in its campaign in Iraq will now find it increasingly difficult to justify such a close relationship with America.
It is against this backdrop that George Bush has broken away from the ‘neocon’ / hard line conservative policies supported Rumsfeld, Cheney and others and has adopted the traditional internationalist approach of Bush Snr., James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Robert Gates etc.
This is a significant change of direction that can have considerable implications for the way in which America conducts herself on the world stage.
It is with George Bush’s blessing that the Iraq Study Group has been formed and been asked to “conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests.”
The Iraq Study Group (ISG) is chaired by James Baker and includes in its membership Lawrence Eagleburger (both of whom served as Secretary of State under Bush Snr.). Eagleburger has replaced Robert Gates (who served as CIA Director under Bush Snr.) who resigned from the ISG when he was nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. They all fall under the camp of the traditional internationalists and have been chosen for this reason. It is widely expected that the ISG will recommend some form of withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and a renewal of the policy of engaging with Iran and Syria for the purpose of helping to stabilise Iraq as American troops withdraw.
This is in clear contradiction of the policies favoured by Rumsfeld and Cheney and this is why Rumsfeld has been forced to resign, with increasing speculation that Cheney will also be forced to resign to allow either John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani to replace him and to run for the Presidency while occupying the office of Vice-President, though it seems forcing him out will be more difficult than Rumsfeld.
It was for this reason that George Bush publicly contradicted Cheney on the issue of using ‘waterboarding’ as a form of torture and Cheney made statements about “not looking for an exit strategy” in Iraq in the run-up to the elections. It was this difference in opinion that also led to four leading military publications calling on Rumsfeld to resign in the run up to the mid-terms elections (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times). Although the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military has always been a difficult one at best, criticism in the public domain has tended to be from retired senior officers. That same criticism of the strategy in Iraq has now been heard from serving officers and their semi-official mouthpieces.
Tony Blair has also now called on Iran and Syria to help bring stability to Iraq and forge a long-term peace in the wider Middle East and is expected to make the same call when he privately gives evidence to the Iraq Study Group today.
This departure from a hard-line conservative foreign policy to a traditional internationalist policy in America will have far reaching implications in the realm of international relations. The people and the policies that have driven American foreign policy since George Bush became President have been largely discredited and this is expected to continue. It is these people and policies that have been the engine that has driven America’s ‘war on terror’ both for America and for her allies, and this engine is now being stripped of its parts. It is not inconceivable that these policies will now be consigned to the dustbin of history and remembered only as a failed experiment that is never to be repeated. This does not however mean that America will cease to pursue her interests internationally or put less effort into maintaining her position as the pre-eminent global power.
Leading policy analysts are now calling not only for an end to the use of the term ‘war on terror’, but in fact what is effectively a strategic reversal in American policy from a commitment to regime change to a renewal of the polices of diplomacy and engagement. Foreign Affairs magazine has published an article that states that “the age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might”.
14 November 2006