US President Bush's 'changes' fail to quell growing public angst, writes David Dumke Last month witnessed the administration of United States President George W Bush announce a series of changes in demeanour, personnel, and policy. The president hopes that this willl help reverse growing doubts amongst the American public as well as Congressional leaders about the situation in Iraq. Last Wednesday's unveiling of the president's highly-anticipated Iraq stabilisation plan was supposed to be the crown jewel of the national security makeover. However, failing to incorporate the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations, the new Bush plan has been coolly received by Congress and public alike. President Bush's 10 January speech was noticeable in that, for the first time since the US invasion, he both acknowledged the conflict is not being won and accepted personal responsibility for the mistakes which have led to the grim reality that exists today. Since his infamous July 2003 "Mission Accomplished" declaration that the war was over, Bush has consistently been accused of wearing rose-colored glasses, despite 3,000 US military deaths, countless Iraqi casualties, and the mayhem that many, long-ago ,characterised as civil war. Bush's stubbornness was epitomised by adamant support of discredited Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was only dismissed after the public punished the Republican Party in the November congressional elections. Bush has also reshaped his national security lineup. Robert Gates, a veteran Republican close to James Baker and other members of his father's highly respected foreign policy team, replaced Rumsfeld. John Negroponte, another senior statesman known as much for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal as his diplomatic skills, shifted positions to become Condoleeza Rice's top hand at the State Department. Embattled United Nations Ambassador John Bolton was replaced by Zalmay Khalilzad, who himself was replaced by veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker as ambassador to Baghdad. Lt General David Petraeus, known as one of the army's best and brightest, has been named as the new commander of military forces in Iraq. But demeanor and personnel alone do not change reality, which is why Bush crafted a new Iraq initiative. Bush's new plan calls for placing 21,500 more US combat troops in Iraq, providing $6.5 billion in funding for military and reconstruction operations, and supposedly requiring benchmarks on the fragile government of Nuri Al-Maliki. The plan was unveiled with much fanfare and supposedly based on consultation with the Iraq Study Group, military leaders, and prominent academics. It plan purported to reverse Bush's sagging support in Congress and among the American electorate. Early reviews, however, indicate that Americans oppose the plan by a 2-1 margin. Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, is also sceptical. All, with certain exceptions, condemned the new initiative as either more of the same or increased escalation. Failing to sense the adverse political atmosphere, Bush may well have inadvertently given the Democrats the political cover they need. not only to question the current Iraq policy but change it. Fresh from victory in the November elections, Democrats under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assumed control of Congress in early January. The 2006 election resulted in a Republican defeat. This wa primarily induced by a growing dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. There is no Democratic mandate per se, as the Democratic Party campaigned successfully on the vague promise of "change"; they did not elaborate any specific plan for altering course in Iraq. Still, the changing of the guard is expected tp result in a highly politicised 110th Congress. The next two years will feature a high-profile standoff between an inexperienced Democratic leadership, increasingly independent congressional Republicans, and a weakened Bush Administration. The differences will be over Iraq and American regional policy. Further clouding the picture is a leadership void, with neither party having a clear frontrunner for the 2008 presidential race. Traditionally, second-term presidents enter a "lame duck" phase when their power wanes and Congress becomes more assertive on a bipartisan basis. But the Bush Administration's lame duck trend will run stronger. This is the first time since 1952 that neither an incumbent president nor vice president will seek their party's next presidential nomination. This means that Republicans and Democrats alike highlight their differences with the president -- particularly given the growing unpopularity of its Iraq policy. Nancy Pelosi, a pragmatic liberal, is the new House Speaker. Victories by centrist Democrats were crucial to the party's success, and the center-left will have significant power in the House. That being said, another key Democratic bloc is the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which represents the 42 African American members of the House; the CBC is unabashedly left-leaning. Similarly, while moderate Democrats victories were more publicised, many progressive, liberal candidates also won. Pelosi will have to balance these factions in order to maintain party unity. Balancing intra-Democratic caucus concerns will be tested over Iraq. Both liberal and centrist wings of the Democratic caucus will want to demonstrate their opposition to the Bush Administration's current policy. The CBC and Progressive Caucus, as well as many of Pelosi's top allies such as Representative Jack Murtha campaigned for a quick withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Moderate Democrats, on the other hand, favour a phased withdrawal. Pelosi has the unenviable task of trying to influence the policy on Iraq while simultaneously not making Iraq a Democratic issue. Democrats will pressure the Bush Administration to alter its Iraq policy, and to a lesser extent US regional policy, by increasing budgetary and programmatic oversight. There will be no immediate demand from the Democratic leadership to withdraw US forces, but the withdrawal option will be thoroughly discussed, as will training of Iraqi armed forces, reconstruction, and Iraq's political development. Clearly, it seems the president's newly unveiled Iraq initiative -- which contrary to public sentiment increases troop levels and requires $6.8 billion in additional funding -- has been bitterly opposed by Democrats across the political spectrum. While more supportive than the Democrats, Congressional Republicans' reaction to the Bush new initiative is tepid. Few want to identify with a plan that is likely to escalate the conflict without any certainty of success. Still, it will be difficult, however, for Congress to reach consensus as to how to proceed. There is no unified call for increased engagement on the Arab-Israeli conflict, dialogue with Syria and Iran, or assistance to Lebanon, nor whether to de-prioritise Arab democratisation. Congress will nip around the edges of regional policy issues, but primary responsibility for foreign policy remains with the Bush Administration. Ohio Representative John Boehner leads the House Republicans -- who are far less united than they were under in 2006. Boehner will have as much difficulty balancing Republican coalitions -- such as the Conservative Action Team (right) and Main Street Coalition (center- right) -- as Pelosi will have balancing Democratic factions. However, the Arab world will likely be better served by Boehner than it was by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Boehner adheres to a more traditional outlook on foreign policy, particularly in maintaining the current Egyptian assistance package, minimising acrimonious debate over Saudi Arabia, and backing the Road Map. Boehner has recently strengthened his ties to the pro-Israel lobby, but the relationship is not nearly as close as it was with DeLay, who championed the Evangelical Christian-Israel Alliance. In the Senate, given the narrow 51-49 seat majority, Senator Reid will have difficulty building a "working majority" on foreign and domestic issues. To secure the majority, Democrats needed to enlist two independent Senators, Bernie Sanders (Vermont) and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut). The political orientation of Sanders and Lieberman illustrate Reid's greatest challenge. Sanders is a Socialist, while Lieberman, an independent, is a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. Added to this is the fact that at least eight senators -- mostly Democratic -- are considering running for president in 2008. These senators will likely base policy decisions on their own interests rather than the party's. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is the new Republican Minority Leader. McConnell has a long record in support of altering the Egyptian assistance package and blocking aid to Palestine. The Arab world marginally benefits with Mississippi's Trent Lott becoming Minority Whip. Lott is strongly supportive of US-Egyptian relations, especially of FMF (military) funding -- attributable to the fact that key Egyptian weaponry is produced in Mississippi. There are six viable candidates already running for president in 2008. On the Democratic side, "electability" in the general election could be the deciding factor in determining the nominee, as Democrats are eager to compete in Republican- leaning states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia, which have been trending Democratic. Two of the Democratic frontrunners -- Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama -- face questions as to whether they have broad enough appeal to win the general election. The opposite it true with the Republican frontrunners, all of whom will have problems building support within their party -- particularly among Evangelical Christians and other social conservatives. The debate over Iraq will greatly shape the race, as leading candidates from both parties risk their own political fortunes over developments in Baghdad. Amongst the Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-known candidate. Clinton also benefits because her husband, the former president, is still the symbolic head of the Democratic Party. She has considerable fundraising skills, and money is the key to successful presidential campaigns. Still, while 45 per cent of Americans love Hillary, an almost equal number loathe her. Many Democrats do not believe she appeals to independents. Clinton also angered her liberal base by supporting the US invasion of Iraq; an act which has neither been forgotten nor forgiven by liberal activists. Senator Barak Obama, an African American, won an improbable election to the Senate in 2004, and has since become a major player in Democratic politics. He has also written two best-selling books, and unlike Clinton did not support the invasion of Iraq. It remains to be seen if Obama is a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton -- without the negatives. Other big questions which dog Obama: Can an African- American candidate win? Can he raise enough money to pose a serious threat to Clinton? The 2004 vice presidential candidate, John Edwards served one term in the Senate -- his only elective office. Edwards is a charismatic candidate who has run continuously since 2004. His campaign will be based domestic social justice issues. Like Clinton, Edwards supported Bush on Iraq, but distanced himself from it within months of the invasion. Many Democrats have been surprised at Edwards' strength among grassroots Democrats and ability to raise money. In the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner-of-war, is a maverick who appeals to independent voters. McCain has worked doggedly to bolster his ties to social conservatives, a key bloc in the Republican primary. However, many Republicans do not trust his independent steak, and social conservatives believe he is too moderate. Moreover, his courting of conservatives has weakened his appeal to Independents -- key to the general election. More damaging, McCain has been a leading proponent of increasing the US military commitment in Iraq. To his chagrin, the new Bush initiative has been labeled the "McCain Doctrine". Should it fail, McCain will suffer the political consequences. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, considered a hero, thanks to deftly handling the 9-11 attacks, is noted for his leadership abilities, tough on crime record, and staunch support for the war on terror. He appeals to independent voters, but like McCain he is socially moderate. His support for abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control differ sharply from the Republican mainstream. While Giuliani supports the White House on Iraq, he is not as directly identified with the issue as is McCain. Governor Mitt Romney, a conservative who won statewide office in a liberal state, is running as a "Reagan Republican." He appeals to social conservatives, but may have trouble, being a Mormon, in courting Evangelical Christians. He is also largely unknown nationally, in stark contrast to McCain and Giuliani. A possible benefit for Romney is that as a state official, he is not tainted with Iraq.
