A Pyrrhic Victory for the Democrats?
By Ulrich Speck

In the November elections, the Democrats won both houses. It looks as if, one more time, a political prophecy has turned out to be wrong - the prophecy that the Republicans will dominate American politics for many years, if not decades.

Now the Democrats have proved that they can win again, at least this time. Whether they will be able to take the lead in 2008 is a completely different question.

There is one overwhelming reason for the Democrats' victory: Iraq. The uninterrupted stream of bad news has influenced Americans to change their minds over Iraq. A majority now thinks that going to war was a wrong decision. And there is not much patience left with a policy that seems to be committed to "stay the course."

The Iraq war has put pressure on those who supported the Bush policy on Iraq, and it has weakened the GOP's capacity to campaign - even Republicans started to distance themselves from Bush and Iraq war. But liberal hawks like Senator Joe Lieberman also had to pay a high price. Lieberman lost the primaries in Connecticut against the no-name candidate Ned Lamont. Lamont's only strong point was Lieberman's enduring support for Bush's conduct of the Iraq war. And it worked, at least for the primaries.
 
The first tangible fallout of the November elections is now evident: Donald Rumsfeld has resigned as Defense Secretary. That was the price Bush had to pay in order to reach out to the new majority in Congress. The Democrats needed a visible sign, and they've got it.

But policy is about more than just signs. Now the Democrats have to deliver on their promises. They have to prove that they are capable of changing the course in Iraq, but how?

Most experts agree that a fast pull-out of American troops from Iraq would only make things worse. Moreover, the credibility of American foreign policy - and therefore the capacity to act - would be deeply damaged, for years. "Bring our troops home" is a populist slogan, but not a policy option for now.

And a change in the Department of Defense might change the decision making structure in Washington D.C., but the situation on the ground remains unchanged so far.

Rumsfeld's decisions concerning the Iraq were highly controversial. He was not only the left's favorite enemy; the neo-cons also held Rumsfeld responsible for failures in Iraq, at least in part. Instead of sending more troops that could fill the power vacuum in Iraq and provide the security that is necessary for the rebuilding of the state, the Secretary of Defense refused to change the course.

It is likely that sending more troops would improve the situation on the ground; perhaps this will happen now. But there was - and is - no guarantee that this would change the calculus of the political actors in Iraq, which is influenced by many factors. The number and efficiency of American troops is only one of them. What the other factors are, and how they might be influenced in order to achieve an inner peace, remains the big question. The only thing that has become clear is that there is no easy answer to that.

Several weeks ago, the Economist - which has become more and more critical of Bush (and Blair) in the past few issues - discussed the strategic options in a lead story. The result was cum grano salis: staying the course is the only option.

Much has been tried, and some of it has been successful. Perhaps that is the only reasonable way to go forward: instead of looking for a fantastic master plan that could fix all the problems, just try to do the same thing but in a better way. A master plan is unlikely to succeed. The situation is complex, and there are many actors involved who constantly adapt their tactics and strategies to the changing environment.

What remains then is a trial and error approach. That means on the one hand to remain flexible, to trust those who are in charge on the ground, and to be quick to adapt and correct if something doesn't work. On the other hand, it remains crucial to act in a determined manner in order to deter the enemies from action and to reassure those who are willing to cooperate. Essentially, it is a tightrope walk.

The task remains huge. And now the Democrats are in charge too. A Democratic Congress might be not able to avoid being held responsible for America's Iraq policy; that is why some observers think that the Democrats' victory in the midterm elections might become a boomerang.

If things in Iraq continue to go badly, or even worse, it's possible that the Republicans will be back in 2008. Voters who hoped that the Democrats can do better in Iraq might be frustrated. If that happens, the prophecy of a long-lasting Republican dominance might turn out to be true.

Sure, it's undisputed that there are many other important issues that will play a role during the next two years, and in the 2008 campaign. But the fact that the Democrats' leaders have to demonstrate their competence also with Iraq is something that makes it much harder for them to keep the advantage they have achieved now. So it's not unlikely that the Democrats' victory in November 2006 might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Dr. Ulrich Speck is a journalist and foreign policy analyst for Die Zeit and maintains a blog for Die Zeit titled "Kosmoblog."  He also is a former DAAD/AICGS Fellow and a regular contributor to AICGS.

This essay originally appeared in German on Dr. Speck's blog (click here to access the German version), and appeared in the November 21, 2006, AICGS Advisor.