What now?

The American people have spoken.   Precisely what they are saying, however, is less clear than some of the victors in yesterday’s election would have us believe.   The Nation’s security could be severely affected if precipitous action is now taken on the basis of misinterpretations of the public’s desires.

‘Change’ to What?

To be sure, the campaign theme of many who successfully ran for office this year is "change."   But as Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. noted in his column in yesterday’s Washington Times, many candidates were opaque on precisely what change they had in mind – particularly with respect to waging the War for the Free World.  

Of particular concern is the prospect that some will define yesterday’s election as a mandate for change that will precipitate freedom’s defeat in Iraq.   That appears to be the agenda for many in the incoming leadership of the House of Representatives.   Among those are individuals like the expected chairmen of the House Committees on Ways and Means and Judiciary, Charles Rangel and John Conyers, respectively.   The former has spoken of his intention to move legislation to cut off funding for military operations in Iraq; the latter has reportedly prepared a bill of impeachment for President Bush.   Whether Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi, whose background and record of acute partisan hostility to the Commander-in-Chief and his efforts in Iraq suggest a strong, visceral sympathy for these initiatives, will actually be disposed to advance them remains to be seen.

A New Class of ‘Scoop’ Jackson Democrats?

The most important determinant of that question may lie with the X-factor in this year’s election returns:   How will Democrats who successfully ran in what have traditionally been relatively conservative Republican districts conduct themselves?   Will they submit to the dictates of a leadership that is far to the left of their own political leanings – or at least those of most of their constituents?   Or will they serve as an anchor to windward for their party’s most senior legislators, perhaps by threatening to more robust security policy approaches on a bipartisan basis with what will, hopefully, prove to be a more dynamic, principled and effective Republican caucus now in the minority of at least one house of Congress (and possibly both)?

At issue in particular will be initiatives that some Democrats put forward in the closing days of the campaign as place-holders in the absence of more clear-cut recommendations about how they would conduct the war in Iraq, let alone elsewhere.   As Mr. Gaffney noted in yesterday’s Washington Times, these seem to amount to "the ‘5 Rs’: a regional approach; reconciliationresponsibility and accountability here at home; reconstruction; and redeployment."  within Iraq;

Will the critical swing block of the more conservative among the newly elected Democrats recognize the sorts of problems with this approach that Mr. Gaffney described as follows:

These platitudes sound appealing.  But consider each in turn and it is pretty clear that, if adopted in the way the top Democrats have in mind, they will not actually improve things, either in Iraq or elsewhere.

For example, a "regional approach" is a euphemism for turning Iraq over to the tender mercies of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia – an idea that will shortly be given political cover by that inveterate appeaser, former Secretary of State James Baker.  A commission Baker chairs with former Rep. Lee Hamilton is poised to recommend that we buy into a protection racket by rewarding the thugs in Tehran and Damascus and our so-called "allies" in Riyadh for having done everything possible to destroy the Iraqis’ fragile experiment in democracy. 

Never mind that such appeasement will produce more bad behavior from these quarters, not less. That is especially true if, at the same time in the name of "reconci­liation," we compel those who have risked everything to work with us to share power with the "insurgents" who are determined to defeat us and kill them.

"Responsibility and accountability" seem basically to be code for firing Rumsfeld and giving more power to State Department types (see above).  Optimism may persuade the uninitiated to believe that anybody would be better than the current Pentagon chief.  But, it is nonsense that Don Rumsfeld bears exclusive responsibility for our problems or that changing this horse in war’s midstream will do other than complicate the military’s role at a critical juncture.

Given the bleating of those offering/demanding change in Iraq about the war’s costs there, it also seems unlikely that more money will actually be spent on the country’s "reconstruction," let alone spent more effectively. And "redeployment" amounts to: a) full-blown strategic retreat and defeat; or b) an untenable pledge to keep large numbers of troops elsewhere in the region and somehow to reinsert them into Iraq when (not if) things get worse.  Either way, the implications are ominous.

In short, the "changes" likely to flow from these initiatives will please the public even less than does our present posture.  While optimism may tell us a new course has to be more to our liking, there are alternatives that will be far less so.  And, sadly, those seem to be the ones now on offer from the prospective House and Senate Democratic leadership.

Now, A Word from the Enemy

Ultimately, how the new power structure in Washington addresses the Iraq front in the War for the Free World – let alone its other active or potential flash-points – may be determined by our enemies, as much as by our leaders.   The Islamofascists and their enablers whom we confront today unquestionably helped to engineer this election’s outcome by their intensive bloodletting over the past few weeks in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, Afghanistan.   They will be heartened by the success of their version of the Vietnam War’s Tet offensive and they will be redoubling their sectarian violence and other subversive efforts to translate yesterday’s political victory into victory on the ground.

It may be that they will be greatly abetted in this by proposals expected soon to emanate from the Baker-Hamilton commission.   Some even expect that Secretary Baker will try to parlay this initiative into his designation as Don Rumsfeld’s replacement at the Pentagon.   Should that happen, it would surely mark the end of the Bush presidency, the beginning of the Baker regency and a congressionally abetted undoing of American power in the face of emboldened and ever-more-dangerous foes.

The Bottom Line

In these circumstances, the Center for Security Policy intends to do what it has done since its founding in 1988:   Provide timely and insightful analyses of the challenges affecting present and future American security interests; help both our leaders and the public understand the need to adopt policies and strategies for meeting these challenges in ways consistent with the philosophy Ronald Reagan described as "peace through strength"; and hold policy-makers accountable for choices they make that deviate from that proven approach.  

We at the Center look forward to working closely with sensible elected officials on both sides of the aisle to help this country prevail, as it must, in the War for the Free World.   And we will be doing our level best to provide an effective counterweight to those whose policies and initiatives would make that outcome less likely.