With the Democrats assuming control of the 110th Congress last week, we have reason to expect that President Bush will lose some of the swagger that has defined his foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, many of the president's core beliefs haven't changed. His defense of the original decision to wage war in Iraq and his personal commitment to eke out something resembling victory remain intact.
What is different is the shift in power--and this may have profound influence on U.S. foreign policy. A growing body of research that looks at the nation's use of its military foreshadows the debate ahead in the new Congress. According to a number of political scientists, change in the makeup of Congress can shake the determination of presidents to deploy forces. After losing a substantial number of seats in Congress to the opposition party, presidents tend to exercise military force less often. Congressional opposition also appears to decrease the likelihood that presidents will intervene in a foreign crisis, especially in a country that is neither an ally nor a significant trading partner with the United States.
As Truman learned in Korea, Eisenhower and Johnson in Vietnam, Ford in Angola, Reagan in Lebanon and Clinton in Somalia, mobilized congressional opponents can effectively force a president's hand in foreign policy. Using legislation, appropriations and public appeals, Congress can substantially increase the political costs of military action--sometimes forcing presidents to withdraw sooner than they would like, other times preventing any kind of military action whatsoever.
Already we have seen signs of presidential power receding. Just after the midterm election, Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the staunchest proponent of the Iraq war. As never before, Bush now pronounces his intention to "work with both Democrats and Republicans," and he publicly recognizes Congress' rightful place in deliberations about military policy. Though the president is considering a proposal to increase troop levels in Iraq, by all indications it would be a short-term commitment aimed at hastening the war's end. While considering new strategies, Bush is talking about broad-based consultation, a significant departure from how the war was originally handled.
After the hubbub of Congress' "first 100 hours" dies down, Democratic heads of committees in the House and Senate will launch hearings and investigations into the various mishaps, scandals and tactical errors that have plagued the Iraq war. Democrats will fixate on no-bid contracts, intelligence failures, decisions to ignore the military's advice about increasing troop levels and more. These highly scripted affairs may have far-reaching consequences: focusing media and public attention on Bush's war failures, derailing elements of his legislative agenda, eroding the willingness of allies to continue fighting alongside U.S. troops and bolstering the resolve of insurgents launching attacks against them.
To be sure, one congressional election cannot undo nearly four years of war in the Middle East.
President Bush continues to hold extraordinary information and tactical advantages over Congress, not least of which is the ability to speak with one voice. With slight majorities in both chambers of Congress, meanwhile, Democrats may have a difficult time enacting legislation that fundamentally redirects the war effort. And conditions within Iraq itself further limit the range of viable options that Congress can consider.
But if history serves as any guide, the 2006 midterm election will have real implications for U.S. foreign policy. Now stripped of his majorities in Congress, the president will be less likely to resort to war--whether against Iran, North Korea, Islamic factions in Africa or any other foe--during the last two years of his tenure than he was in the first six. During the 108th and 109th Congresses, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd made a habit of railing against a Senate and House that was "ominously, dreadfully silent." At the start of the 110th, the president can detect the sounds of hoof beats on Capitol Hill.
----------
William Howell, an associate professor at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, is co-author of the upcoming book "While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power."
