Three Big Things

This was an unusual week. Big things happened—three of them.

We’ll start at home.

“Things have to change.”

On Tuesday eleven moderate Republican members of the House of Representatives met with the President. After the meeting they said they told him the "in the most unvarnished way that they possibly could that things have got to change" in Iraq. Other comments they made suggested they would remain loyal to Bush’s Iraq policy through September. Many would translate that to mean: “If we Republicans don’t change our tune on the war, my political career will be over about an hour after the polls close in November 2008.” They also probably stated that unless the US policies in Iraq changed, that the war in Iraq probably would have profoundly negative long-term affects on the Republican party.

Bush has heard comments like this before. He has rebuffed comments like this before. Two days after meeting with the moderate Republicans, Bush announced that he would be open to the idea of benchmarks.

Bush did not say he and Congressional leaders had agreed on the benchmarks. He did not say that he would link benchmarks to funding the war.

Still, it’s easy to envision a scenario that would begin to extract the US from the war. Benchmarks are agreed to. Benchmarks are attached to funding. The US fails to meet the benchmarks while unpopularity about the war continues to grow. The ideas from the Iraq Study Group are talked about and talked about and talked about. Hopefully Senator Biden’s idea of a soft federation of the three main sectarian groups is Iraq is added to the mix. The President and the Congress agree on a plan. US forces begin to leave.

But let’s be realistic. Bush shows no signs of being open to a plan like this. He shows every indication of extending the surge or something like it to the end of his term and letting his successor clean up the mess he has made.

Still, the meeting the Republicans had with Bush last week is telling. It informs Bush and the US that very soon Republicans will begin to defect from the Bush strategy in Iraq. When they do, they will break the trail for others to follow. This will clear the way for any number of scenarios that will reduce the US presence in Iraq.

The Republicans realize that the more they are linked with failed policies in Iraq, the more likely it is that they will pay the piper during the next election. Which is why the Democrats are using phrases like “support the troops” at every opportunity and making guarantees that funding will not be cut off. To many it appears that Democrats are moving forward with the deliberate speed of your average turtle on downers. They are doing this for many reasons. One of the most important is that they don’t want to repeat the repercussions of Vietnam—where anti-war protests and actions were later perceived as being disloyal to the troops. Actions Democratic party leaders took to end the war in Vietnam and the way they presented themselves enabled them to be branded as soft on national security. This crippled the party for decades.

The Republicans and the Democrats know that far more than the next election is at stake. The party that emerges from the war in Iraq with the better record on national security probably will have political advantages that echo for decades.

But back to the war the US is fighting in Iraq—actions taken by Republican lawmakers this week may mark the beginning of the end.

Exit: Stage Left

Last Thursday Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair announced he would step down next month. When he came to power ten years ago, he rode the momentum of a huge landslide. His youth and energy, intelligence and charisma added dynamism to his administration.

He achieved peace in Northern Ireland. He helped calm troubled waters and end horrible human rights violations in Sierra Leone. He was one of the leading crusaders for intervention against Milosevic in Kosovo. Along with most of his European brethren, he supported US efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.

At home he had the leverage and the skill to change the constitution to give greater autonomy to Scotland and Wales. He increased spending in health care and education. His calm demeanor and steady hand helped soothe the shock of the terrorist attack that plagued London in July 2005. Perhaps his brightest moment in the public eye came after the death of Princess Diana. While the royal family elected to remain distant from the bright spotlight Diana’s death created, Blair stood at center stage, expressed his shock and concern, and called her “the people’s princess.”

Under Blair’s watch England’s economy has far outpaced the sluggish economies on the Continent. Since Blair has been in office, job growth in Britain also grew much faster than in the rest of Europe.

Blair’s successes at home and abroad helped convince the English that the Labour Party could be effective leaders. They rewarded Blair with three landslide victories. And many think that he has moved the political center of England to the left.

It was Blair’s strident support for the war in Iraq and his close affiliation with Bush led to his downfall. Bush saw in Iraq an opportunity to spread democracy and direct Iraqi oil toward to the West. Blair certainly was not blind to these opportunities. But unlike Bush, Blair brought to the conflict his crusader spirit. Blair supported the war in Iraq too quickly and without equivocation. His steadfast support of the war and Bush’s policies has led many to attack him as Bush’s poodle.

As the news from Iraq turned sour, Blair’s popularity plummeted. Scandals also plagued his last months in office.

In June he will be succeeded by Gordon Brown—currently the number two man in the Labour Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer. (In the US and many countries his position would be called Secretary of the Treasury.) Brown is widely respected within his party. Though Brown lacks Blair’s baggage on Iraq, he also does not have Blair’s warmth, style, or charm.

Blair’s stepping down clearly marks the end of an era—and a new beginning. The Labour party hopes that the party may be reborn without being replaced.

Trade Regulations

Democratic legislators and the Bush Administration reached an agreement on Thursday that will expand most future trade agreements. The agreed that in the future trade agreements with other countries will contain the following provisos.
o Child labor and forced labor will be banned.
o Labor rights will be guaranteed.
o National and international environmental laws will be enforced.
o Poor people will have greater access to generic drugs.
o The US will have greater authority to ban vessels coming into US ports.

This agreement is the result of a push by Democratic leaders to revise issues they have had for years with the Bush Administration’s trade agreements. It is a big deal. It does good things. The agreement shows that the Bush Administration can be realistic and that there is some evidence that Democrats have a spine.

Commonalities

These events show that personality matters. Bush’s rush to war and a-historical method of fighting it led to shallow and often silly tactics and policies. Blair’s crusader idealism short-circuited a process that should have provoked the US to improve its strategies.

They show actions often have consequences.

They showcase the vulnerability of a tragic flaw. Bush could not see the horrific consequences the war in Iraq would bring. This weakened his party and gutted his presidency.
Blair flaw has deprived Blair the mantle of greatness.

The events of this week show that the core of most political actions is a power play.

They show that politics can create horrific responses (the war in Iraq) and intelligent solutions to complex problems (Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the new trade regulations). Sadly, they also show that time, often years of it, is necessary for politics to do the hard work necessary to do good work.

Kudos

To Derek Fisher. Fisher is a guard for the Utah Jazz. Monday he missed practice and the first three quarters of the second game of the playoff series with the Warriors. Most who talked about his absence in public said he was not present for undefined “personal reasons.” Early Monday Fisher was home. With his wife, he comforted his 10-month-old daughter. On Monday in New York City she was operated and given chemotherapy for retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer. Once the operation was completed, Fisher boarded a plane and flew to Utah. He entered the game late, played very well, and proved crucial to the Jazz’s victory that night. But he took his performance on Monday to a new level, when, after the game, he told the story of his daughter’s illness and urged parents to have their children’s eyes tested.

Idiots of the Week/Line of the Week

The US military gets the idiot award for not doing more to address the perils that flow from this statistic: a recent poll suggests that 47 % of US troops think that it is okay not to treat Iraqi’s with respect.

Rudy Giuliani gets both the IOW and LOW for the pretzel-like logic and contorted statements he made to defend his position on abortion. As he has in the past, he commented, “I don’t always agree with myself.”