intentBlog:

Rumsfeld replaced; Bill Emmott's Brief Analysis

Dear ATCA Colleagues; dear IntentBloggers

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

Re: US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld replaced; Bill Emmott's Brief Analysis of the US Elections in regard to Iran, Iraq and WTO

US President George W Bush has announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down from his post in the wake of the unfolding results of the US mid-term elections. Former CIA Chief Robert Gates, who headed that agency from 1991 until 1993, will be nominated to take over as Defense Secretary. Mr Gates served as CIA Director during the Presidency of Mr Bush's father, former President George Bush. He is a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is tasked with recommending ways of tackling the problems the US faces in Iraq.

"The timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon," Mr Bush said at the White House Wednesday afternoon. "I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made" in Iraq, Mr Bush said. He said he had "a series of thoughtful conversations" with Mr Rumsfeld about the Defense Secretary's resignation. Mr Bush said that his administration's Iraq policy was "not working well enough, fast enough", and that Mr Rumsfeld agreed that a "fresh perspective" was needed on the issue. Mr Bush said he would seek to find "common ground" with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become the first female speaker in the lower chamber. "I welcome this change. I think it will give a fresh start to finding a solution to Iraq rather than staying the course," said Nancy Pelosi. Neither Mr Rumsfeld nor Vice-President Dick Cheney were present at the news conference where Mr Bush spoke, which veterans observed was unusual at such events.

On Monday an editorial in the US Military Times Publications -- which includes the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times -- called for Mr Rumsfeld to step down. The publications are independent of the Department of Defense. Rumsfeld has been heavily criticized for his policies in Iraq, and exit polls taken during Tuesday's midterm elections, seen by some as a referendum on Mr Bush and his administration, showed strong voter dissatisfaction -- 57 percent -- with the Iraq war. Rumsfeld, 74, has served as Defense Secretary since January 20, 2001, the beginning of Mr Bush's first term.
____________________________________________________________________________

We are grateful to Bill Emmott for his Brief Analysis of the US Elections in regard to Iran, Iraq and WTO for ATCA in regard to US Elections: Democrats seize control of House of Representatives; Senate control hangs in the balance.

Bill Emmott was the Editor of The Economist, the world's leading weekly magazine on current affairs and business, from 1993 until March 31st 2006. He is now an independent writer, speaker and consultant. After studying politics, philosophy and economics at Magdalen College, Oxford, he moved to Nuffield College to do postgraduate research into the French Communist party's spell in government in 1944-47. Bill has written four books on Japan - The Sun Also Sets: the limits to Japan's economic power, Japan's Global Reach: the influence, strategies and weaknesses of Japan's multinational corporations, both of which were best-sellers, and Kanryo no Taizai (The bureaucrats' deadly sins), published only in Japanese. Most recently, he wrote a book version of an extended essay, published in The Economist in October 2005 and called "The Sun also Rises" to echo his 1989 book. This longer, book version was published in Japanese translation under that same title (Hiwa Mata Noboru) by Soshisha in January 2006. In February 2003 he published a book about the global issues of our times called "20:21 Vision - 20th century lessons for the 21st century". Bill writes a column on international affairs for a Japanese monthly magazine, Ushio. He is currently working on a new book, about the rivalry between Japan, China and India.

Bill Emmott is a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the BBC World Service Governors' Consultative Committee, a director of Development Consultants International, a Dublin-based company, a member of the Swiss Re Chairman's Advisory Panel, a director of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, and co-chairman (with the Hon Roy MacLaren) of the Canada-Europe Roundtable for Business. He was a director of The Economist Group from 1993 until 2006. He has honorary degrees from Warwick and City Universities, and is an honorary fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Brief Analysis of the US Elections in regard to Iran, Iraq and WTO

The surprise about the US election results is only that it took so long. Bill Clinton's presidency, and the Democratic Party in general, was rocked by a mid-term congressional landslide to the Republicans after just two years in office, in 1994. For George Bush it has taken six years.

The reason for the Democrats' recapture of the House of Representatives is easy to divine: the Bush administration's failure in Iraq and in foreign policy generally, plus disillusionment with a corrupt, do-nothing-constructive Congress led by the Republicans for the past 12 years. It didn't happen in 2002 essentially because of 9/11: the country was still rallying around the President, after that shocking event. It didn't happen in 2004 at the presidential elections because of the failure of the Democratic Party to work out how to be both strong on national security and critical of President Bush's incompetence, a failure which led to the choice of John Kerry as the candidate. Kerry should have won in 2004, but failed because of his incoherence and because he failed to reassure enough voters that they would be safer under his leadership. Two more years of failure later, combined with corruption and other scandals, and the Democrats would have surely had to dissolve their party in humiliation had they failed to win a clear victory. Fortunately for them, they did.

So what will it mean? The simple answer is that it will mean exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted it to mean: constrained government. The White House will not be able to get its own initiatives through Congress and it will be barraged with extra hearings, investigations and other oversight. Some wonder whether a lame duck Bush administration might now become even more ambitious in its foreign policy, now that it has no elections left to lose, and could attack Iran. I would assign this a tiny chance of happening, both on the merits of the case for military action (which are non-existent, in my view) and on the politics of a constrained White House, in need of appropriations from Congress to support an already over-extended military.

Adventurism is extremely unlikely. So is a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Political stalemate is the likely outcome. Which is not a bad thing, except from the point of view of trade negotiations. But those were stymied in any case.

With all good wishes

Bill Emmott

[ENDS]

We look forward to your further thoughts, observations and views. Thank you.

Best wishes

For and on behalf of DK Matai, Chairman, Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance (ATCA)