Posted By Will Inboden Share

Now that the final rounds of primaries are over and November midterm elections approach, many signs point to huge Republican gains in Congress. Seven weeks is still a long time in politics, so the GOP shouldn't pull a Leon Lett and start celebrating yet. But many independent analysts see a GOP takeover of the House of Representatives as likely, and a potential pick-up of seven or eight seats in the Senate. Such prospects are no doubt causing some serious heartburn in the Obama White House. However, here's a different thought: the Obama administration's national security team should actually welcome major GOP gains in Congress.

While the president's roles as commander-in-chief and diplomat-in-chief give the Executive Branch the lead responsibility on defense and foreign policy, Congress also plays essential parts, especially on spending allocations and scrutiny (in support or opposition) of White House policies. On some of the most important national security issues, a Republican Congress would probably be more supportive of the Obama administration's policies than the current Democratic majorities on the Hill.

Admittedly, foreign policy doesn't seem to be a major concern in the current electoral climate, which is focused on the moribund economy, a dubious health care bill, and the colossal budget deficit. This is certainly the case with the Tea Party movement, and as Peter Baker has described, the Tea Partiers aren't united by any particular foreign policy position.

Nevertheless, the 112th Congress will still have to address a number of national security concerns. If the GOP does take the House and make substantial Senate inroads, here's what it will likely mean for several key issues:

  • Afghanistan: Republicans in Congress have generally been more supportive of the Obama administration's troop surge and ongoing deployment in Afghanistan than Democrats (and likewise with the continuing force presence in Iraq). As Afghanistan enters the crucible of the next several months, Congressional Republicans will bring much scrutiny of the administration's policy, but at the end of the day will be much more likely to support and -- crucially -- fund continuing military operations there.
  • Iran: Judging by the overwhelming congressional vote in June for tighter economic sanctions on Iran, there is considerable bipartisan concern over Iran's nuclear weapons program and support for confronting it. Yet in the unfortunate but real chance that the sanctions regime fails and some type of military action becomes necessary, congressional Republicans will also be more likely than Democrats to support the administration.
  • The Defense Budget: With exploding budget deficits posing a serious threat to the nation's short and long-term economic health, the next Congress will have no choice but to take a hard look and meaningful action on government spending. This will not spare the Pentagon budget, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates is already ahead of the curve in identifying spending cuts and program cancellations. But cutting fat is one thing; cutting muscle and bone is another. When faced with the need to trim the federal budget, congressional Democrats are more likely to prioritize cutting defense over trimming domestic programs. A GOP Congress would be more willing to make deeper cuts in domestic spending while aligning with Secretary Gates' priorities in maintaining a robust defense budget.
  • Free Trade: The White House has given lip service, but taken little action, on pushing for congressional ratification of Free Trade Agreements negotiated and signed by the Bush administration with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. This is partly because of the administration's anemic trade policy, and partly a bow to the political realities of Democratic opposition on the Hill. A GOP Congress would be much more receptive to ratifying these FTAs and supporting other free trade initiatives -- and see whether the administration is willing to translate its words into deeds.

On other national security issues -- terrorism, arms control, China, Russia, democracy and human rights -- a more Republican-leaning Congress would probably bring more scrutiny on certain Obama administration policies. But it is hard to foresee the Hill forcing any dramatic policy changes in those areas (with one wild card being the possible ratification of the New START treaty, which if not completed during this Congress could face renewed scrutiny from new GOP Senators, as Bob Joseph and Eric Edelman point out).

Still, all things considered, if Republicans win big in November, amid the gloomy faces at the White House, there should be a few surreptitious smiles from the national security team.

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

 

ZATHRAS

4:07 AM ET

September 16, 2010

Look at the evidence

Look at the web sites of Republican Senate candidates: Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Christine O'Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Joe Miller.

Don't take my word for it. Look at their own campaign web sites. These people have nothing to say about defense, national security, Iraq, Afghanistan, procurement, personnel...nothing at all. They don't know anything. It's Dinner for Schmucks.

Look, I get that new Republican Senators might be convenient blank slates on which Bush Republican former low-level national security staffers might write. A fond hope, that. I also understand that to former Bush Republican low-level national security staffers rank, stinkng, putrid ignorance of foreign and national security affairs is no bar to national office; it's how George W. Bush entered the White House, after all, and look how well that worked out.

But, my God. Show me a Republican Senate candidate in this cycle whose knowledge of foreign, trade and defense policy commands your respect. These people aren't taking advice from people with experience in national security affairs; they're taking advice from a lot of pissant campaign consultants and campaign contributors. For a real Republican, it's just humiliating.

 

LATINLANDO

3:39 PM ET

September 16, 2010

For a real Republican, it's just humiliating...

...and for the others it's really scary!

As for the argument of this article...the author is very truly deeply and fundamentally wrong!!
In particular regarding Gate's DoD reforms and cuts - since the GOP and its supporters within DoD are those responsible for preventing Gate's to achieve the reform he has been supporting!!

 

ZORRO

5:42 PM ET

September 16, 2010

Electioneering

I wonder if this is a way to try to get core Democrat to not vote by damning Obama with faint praise?
Also, Obama is clearly in a losing position in the "Iran question". Either he launches a new disastrous war or the Republicans continues to call him a chicken.
I wonder if this means that we can expect a war on Iran in 2012? Close enough to the election that the real problems has not shown up yet. Obama could also use it to gather the nation behind him.
On the other hand I'm not sure he can resist the Republicans for 2 years or so.

 

WOODY TANAKA

3:14 PM ET

September 23, 2010

Say What?

The problem with this analysis is the fact that both the Obama national "security" team's approach and that of the GOP are literally insane. We could cut half of our defense spending and still have more than enough to defend this country from attack. (We couldn't go invading other countries and bullying them into submission, as we do, but that would be a good thing....)

Wasting trillions on foreign military adventurism and "free"-"trade" imperialism, while fighting tooth and nail to provide good roads, decent schools for children and medical care for sick kids and old folks shows that the GOP and its supporters are immoral parasites, sucking the country dry for their own ends.

 

JAYDEE001

9:21 PM ET

September 23, 2010

So you're essentially saying

So you're essentially saying a Republican takeover of Congress would take us back to the good ole days of George W Bush, right? With republicans back in charge we would enjoy greater support for continuing the misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (totally f#*ked up by the previous administration), and as well we might have the votes for another war in Iran, if it becomes politically necessary and attractive. Yeah, that could hasten the end of our national economic security. It could also break our volunteer military, but whose worried - we'll just privatize the thing and hire mercenaries.

Oh, and we can look forward to expanding "free-trade" - how has that worked out for us? More jobs exported to other countries and more layoffs - that will make the indutrialists happy for sure.

And just to make it all really peachy, the DOD and the MIC will be all smiles, because the great engine of war will continue to take on more of our GDP.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More