US ready to face the world anew
By Stephen Julias and Max Fraad Wolff
The George W Bush era began with withdrawal from multilateral agreements and
lively pronouncement of Pax Americana's historical mission and might. Allies
were icing on a global cake of the United States' baking and for the United
States' eating. This was to be showcased to a timid world by ending "rabid"
Middle Eastern regimes bent on the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) and blessing minions with the virtues of democracy.
This vision, mission and method have now failed so dramatically as to be
unsustainable for the US president and his remaining allies. On Tuesday it is
likely that Bush's Republican Party will pay a price at the polls similar to
that paid by many of the politicians that joined this ill-fated crusade.
Once it hurts the US domestic base and, thus, re-election prospects, it's time
for a change. Sacrifice remains the duty of others. As we all wait to see what
happens - or doesn't - on Tuesday, a few things of real import are already
clear. A new ethos will flow from Washington toward a jilted world and recently
damned "evil dictators". It will be along the lines of "let's make a deal".
For this there is the US dealmaker extraordinaire, former secretary of state
James A Baker III. The new policy will go as far in modesty - while meeting
America's immodest strategic regional needs - as the last policy departed from
humility and, in its darker moments, rationality.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Baker and Lee H Hamilton, will conclude
that the US needs to make deals with Syria, Iran and the rest of a timid world
to assure that the US can escape Iraq without a total loss of its long-term
interest.
Gone will be the stated policy of liberty and democratic revolution in the
Middle East. The continued economic costs in lives, prestige and perceived
omnipotence are simply unacceptable. A new, cost-controlled cooperative agenda
will be announced as allowing the US to meet its real central objectives and
move on to victory in the "war on terror".
Why the change?
The war in Iraq and its subsequent nation-building exercise have created a
direct cost to the American taxpayer of about US$340 billion to date. Not only
has this large investment not yielded the promised returns, the costs sunk in
this situation are climbing with every continued minute of the United States'
involvement.
More troubling still is that there is no reason to believe that increased
investment will, in any way, improve the chances of receiving the desired
results. Furthermore, although the $340 billion figure is truly alarming, the
amount doesn't even begin to disclose all costs. The long-term financial costs
of medical and psychological care will be enormous. The financing of the war
with massive foreign borrowing means the cost will be raised by the interest
paid to those who lent.
The human costs are staggering. This is true for US forces, contractors and
families and for Iraqis in general. Economist Brad DeLong estimates that for
every month the war in Iraq is extended, the human bill is about 100 American
soldiers killed, 500 American soldiers maimed and perhaps 4,000 Iraqis dead.
David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, has put together a
deficit-awareness road trip. The message from Walker's bipartisan fellow
road-trippers is simple and clear. The US government is on a fast track to
financial ruin. He features the following insights on his travels: "If the
United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades,
a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more
... That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America."
There is a coming showdown between rising taxes and spending cuts - now a
foregone conclusion. The war costs, political and economic, are savaging those
who favor spending cuts. An expensive, politically rebalancing war in Iraq
risks more precious agendas and the power to shape the outcome in a coming
transformative set of decisions about the future of the taxation and spending
patterns of the largest government on Earth.
In short, the US federal government has overspent and over-borrowed like there
was no tomorrow. A reckoning is overdue and a softer economy is already on us.
It is the hour of difficult choice.
The political bill for the United States' unilateral attempt to democratize the
Middle East is to be presented to the Republican leadership on Tuesday.
Although the details of the war's costs or the nation's overall financial
position may not be general knowledge, every American senses that something is
profoundly wrong. This unease takes palpable form in nightly pictures broadcast
from Iraq and stagnating middle-class paychecks in the face of skyrocketing
bills. Voter concern is clearly demonstrated in state reporting of record voter
registrations for the traditionally low-turnout mid-term elections.
Anti-incumbent sentiment is also running high.
Whether or not the Republicans maintain control of either or both houses of
Congress, the political costs of the administration's Iraqi adventure will be
high. Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, believed after the last
election that the Republican Party's conservative wing had assembled a power
base of such strength as to assure unquestioned ideological control of the
nation's agenda for at least the next decade.
No matter which party emerges from the mid-term elections with voting control,
this administration will function as a lame duck while the nation waits until
2008 for the possibility of new initiatives to tackle its increasingly serious
challenges. The president and his allies have lost the control that until
recently they had arrogantly taken for granted. As this is increasingly widely
understood, the various factions in the Republican orbit see their priorities
as imperiled by the war.
The United States today is perceived as a superpower in decline having failed
in Iraq, abandoned allies and forsaken its democratic principals. This demands
and will get a radical strategic change no matter which party emerges dominant
from the mid-term elections.
The war in Iraq has become a focal point of anger for the average American
voter and throughout the world. Anger over income, opportunity and wage
inequality in the United States and US economic and political decision-making
around the world are now focused on Bush and US action in Iraq. This has
finally become clear to business and political leadership.
Thus we will see them make a deal. It is politically more acceptable and
practically manageable to make a visible change in Iraq than to attempt to
tackle more intractable problems. Change is possible in Iraq because it will be
sold as a problem of poor implementation based on bad advice. Sound familiar?
It should remind you of the "bad intelligence" issues after WMD did not
materialize in Iraq.
The deal the US will likely pursue
The most visible change will be in the office of the secretary of defense.
Either Donald Rumsfeld will depart or he will stay in place as a figurehead.
The Iraq Study Group will take over Iraq planning and advising. It will likely
present the president with clear policy options that contradict the rhetoric of
establishing democracy in Iraq.
The most palatable choice to the White House will likely be the "stability
first" option. This policy choice argues that the military should focus on
stabilizing Baghdad while the US Embassy should work toward a political
accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing democracy in Iraq has been
dropped. It also appears that the military's security objectives are being
modified under a policy option being termed "redeploy and contain". According
to Baker, this option calls for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Time schedules will be established for the achievement of milestones for
shifting the burden of securing the country's cities and towns. It will be
impossible to secure even a patina of peace within Iraq without dealing with
neighboring nations. In short, the US must reach out to Iran and Syria.
According to the Gulf Times, last week Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair's most senior foreign-policy adviser, traveled to Damascus
to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and other senior figures. The
paper quoted a British spokesman saying, "We all know that Syria is a part of
the reality on the ground in the Middle East and therefore it can play either a
constructive or a destructive role. We would obviously hope that it will play a
constructive role."
To preserve now-threatened legitimacy and appearance of power, the White House
and allies will offload much of their definitive rhetoric and several of its
architects in the immediate aftermath of this week's elections. This will occur
as a long-overdue and now fraught necessity regardless of the outcome of the
voting. Thus a strategic change in the method of US activity in the Middle East
is now a virtual certainty. This must be done to stem hemorrhaging prestige,
budget and power. This is the real lesson of the mid-term elections.
The new deal
The US will attempt to refocus global and domestic attention and rebuild. The
professional and business-minded consultants who will be brought in for this
round are less overtly ideological and promise a more competent and
well-managed version of what you have already seen. Gone will be much of the
alienating bluster and endless self-promotional and factually dubious
pronouncement. What will survive are the same strategic interests and some of
the ill-will and damage done. US interests have been meaningfully set back, and
time and compromise will be required.
We anticipate the offer of a new deal to the world based on the same agenda.
Given the sensitive state of the US macroeconomy, looming government budget
issues and America's diminished power position in the Middle East, there is no
real other choice. Thus we conclude that a dramatic policy shift is certain and
the most important outcome of the mid-term elections.
Stephen D Julias III is adjunct faculty in economic development
at Boricua College, New York, and an international management consultant who
served four US administrations; he is working to found an international
development and management project with Max Fraad Wolff. Max Fraad Wolff
is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst and managing director of GlobalMacroScope.
(Copyright 2006 Max Fraad Wolff. Used by permission.)
