Stars and Stripes November 7, 2002
Military effect: War more likely
By Patrick J. Dickson and Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, November 7, 2002
WASHINGTON - President Bush spent the last few days before Tuesday's elections criss-crossing the country, stumping for Republican candidates for Congress in hopes of winning back the Senate and shoring up his advantage in the House.
And by virtue of those gains, he hoped to show the world that the American people are clearly behind him as he pursues the global war on terror.
It was business as usual in the Pentagon on Wednesday, but fewer people than normal filled the halls. Those that were making the rounds seemed to be moving with a different focus: subdued, serious and calm.
"We pretty much knew another war [with Iraq] was coming, but [the election results] just capped it," said an officer who asked not to be named and emphasized that he was not referring to any personal knowledge regarding a possible attack on Saddam Hussein.
"If there was an element of 'if' before, that's gone," the officer said. "Now it's 'when'."
Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, says the administration will use the election to show the world that the public stands behind Bush.
"The budgets will go up. President Bush is going to run an ambitious foreign policy," he said.
"But the Bush team has been aggressive in their foreign policy, but timid in putting troops on the ground," Eland said. "I think they'll try to win the war in Iraq on the cheap, and that's a mistake."
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, agrees.
"This is an aligning of the planets behind President Bush at just the right time, especially as far as Iraq goes," Sabato said. "It's a green light."
And with a full Congress behind Bush, "this will ensure that a majority stays behind him for the duration," Sabato said.
What about pay?
Sabato would not hazard a guess on weapons systems or programs that might get the ax, or renewed interest, but pay and benefits is another matter.
"You can't ever say on hardware," he said. "But almost always, GOP majorities try to increase pay."
Patrick Garrett, associate analyst at online defense thinktank GlobalSecurity.org, agrees.
"There will be a bit more emphasis on [improving] the sad pay levels that have existed for the past 10 years," he said. "But there has already been that focus in the last two years."
The committees
Oversight of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which had been chaired by Carl Levin, D-Mich., will likely turn over to the committee's ranking member, Virginia's John Warner.
The transfer from Levin to Warner, who was re-elected to his fifth term Tuesday, is not automatic.
According to Senate rules, the Republican leadership will decide who will lead the chamber's committees. Since chairmanships are plum assignments, leaders offer the posts as special rewards - even if that means pulling a very junior member of a committee up from the ranks.
But Warner is not only a prominent and powerful Republican himself, but also a veteran of military affairs.
Warner spent 2½ years as the committee's chairman beginning in 1998, and has first-hand experience in two military services: the Navy, where he served as an electronic technician's mate in the mid-1940s; and the Marine Corps, where he served as ground officer with the First Marine Air Wing in the Korean War and later the Marine Corps Reserve.
Warner was also Secretary of Navy in the mid-1970s.
"I talked with John Warner [Tuesday] night," Sabato said. He's on Cloud 9. He'll be head of the committee. It's a done deal."
The House Armed Services Committee is harder to gauge. The chariman, Rep. Bob Stump, R.-Ariz., is retiring after 26 years in Washington due to poor health. His vice-chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., could not be reached for comment.
Afghanistan
Frederick Barton, senior adviser and co-director of postconflict reconstruction projects at The Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, doesn't think that the Republicans holding both house of Congress will have that much of an impact on the mission in Afghanistan.
"I don't think there's been a partisan split; the holdup [for reconstruction funding] has been in the appropriations debate. [Not having it] puts the Karzai government at risk, because they're seen as ineffective. That could be harmful."
Copyright 2002 Stars and Stripes
