America’s
Referendum on Iraq
By Ahmad Faruqui, PhD
Dansville, CA
In all but name, America’s mid-term elections
of November 7th were a referendum on Iraq. Contrary
to Republican hopes, the issue of the Iraq war
dominated local and state issues. As the polls
closed, CNN Talk Show host Larry King said that
if one word could be used to sum up the electoral
results, it was Iraq.
As the evening progressed, it became increasingly
clear that control of the House would pass on
to the Democrats after 12 years of Republican
dominance. As morning broke, the Senate was tied
between the two parties. Incumbent Republican
senators in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island and Virginia were defeated. Two days later,
the Democrats took the Senate.
A majority of the Governorships went to the Democrats,
including those in the populous states of Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York and Ohio. This was the
price of hubris, paid for by a president that
TIME magazine labeled the lone ranger, isolated
not only from the average American but also from
the average Republican.
Much of this isolation had been evident in the
weeks leading up to the election. Several Republican
candidates, including some incumbents, shied away
from being seen with Bush in large states such
as California and Florida. Whereever Bush showed
up, he would only talk about Iraq. All along,
the president and his team portrayed the Democrats
as having no clear strategy on Iraq other than
to “cut and run.” They were lampooned
for not knowing the basics of national security
and for being wimps on defense. The president
ridiculed those who wanted him to pull out American
forces from Iraq by saying that “if we leave,
they will follow us here.” In the waning
days of the campaign, the Republican Party’s
spinmeisters dug up the chestnut that Democrats
subscribed to the “tax and spend”
mantra.
In the end, the Republican obsession with Iraq
backfired. The American people wanted to change
the course in Iraq and to replace Republican lawmakers
caught up in corruption scandals from A to Z.
In her victory speech, Nancy Pelosi, a Congresswoman
from San Francisco who will have the distinction
of being the first female speaker of the House,
said that “the American people voted for
change, and they voted for Democrats to take our
country in a new direction.” In no uncertain
words, she added: “We need a new direction
in Iraq.”
Change was in the air. Even the president sensed
it but it was too late. The day after, in a press
conference, a chastened Bush acknowledged that
dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq was a major
factor in his party’s losses. “There
were different factors that determined the outcome
of different races, but no question, Iraq was
on people’s minds,” Bush said.
He went on to announce that he had accepted the
resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in
order to bring in “a fresh perspective on
Iraq.” This was a complete about face, since
just a day prior to the elections, he had said
that Rumsfeld was doing the job of three secretaries
of defense, by transforming the military and prosecuting
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He had affirmed
his intention to keep Rumsfeld in that position
through the end of his presidential term.
This stubbornness was foolhardy, since it came
on the heels of an editorial in several military
newspapers calling for Rumsfeld to resign just
a week prior to the elections. The editorial echoed
calls from several retired generals, including
Anthony Zinni, which had been coming out during
the past year. And a month ago, the British Chief
of Defense Staff had stirred up a storm by calling
for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq,
saying their presence was inflaming the situation.
Many American voters were aware that leading pro-war
figures, such as Richard Perle, were now questioning
its prosecution. Arch neocon Elliot Cohen was
proposing alternatives on the editorial pages
of the Wall Street Journal. Ralph Peters, a widely
published military author, wrote in USA TODAY
that it was time to face the reality in Iraq and
begin examining a troop withdrawal. Fareed Zakaria
penned a cover story for Newsweek in which he
said that the US, by failing to win in Iraq, had
lost the war.
Typical of the losses suffered by Republicans
was Richard Pombo of central California. A seven-term
Congressman who had become chairman of the powerful
House Resources Committee, he lost in a conservative
district where the Republican Party held a six-percentage
point advantage in member registration. He lost
to Jerry McNerney, a wind energy consultant who
had never held political office.
The president, vice president and the first lady
had all swung by his constituency to boost Pombo’s
chances. In the end, they simply added to voter
misapprehensions about Pombo, who had openly supported
the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and building a fence
along the Mexican border. He had also supported
measures to drill for oil in pristine natural
settings, earning him the nickname of “eco
thug.”
As he watched the election returns, the unflappable
Pombo said that regardless of what happened, he
“wouldn’t change one thing”
about the campaign or his work in Washington.
Perhaps it was fitting that the man in cowboy
boots got the news of his defeat in a tiny town
called Waterloo.
A Republican on whom fortune smiled on Election
Day was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won by a landslide
in a largely Democratic state, California. This
was no mean accomplishment for a man who had lost
much political face just a year ago in a special
election. He did it by proving that politics is
the art of the possible. Arnold modified his platform
so that it merged with the Democratic platform
as it embraced stem cell research and curbs on
greenhouse gas emissions.
With a tinge of schadenfreude, much of the European
press echoed Le Monde’s comment that the
election was a referendum on the policies of President
Bush. Had the president imitated Arnold and changed
course, he would not have lived to see a day when
Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic
National Committee, would assert, “There
is no Bush presidency.” Even if one discounts
the hyperbole, it is clear that Bush presidency
is battered and bruised.
With Rumsfeld’s departure, it remains to
be seen if the scenario laid out by Bob Woodward
in “State of Denial” will come to
pass. Woodward cites a conversation between Cheney
and an aide in which the vice president says,
“Look, if Rumsfeld goes then they’ll
be after me, and next will be the President. You
have to hold the line.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
