Saturday, September 06, 2003

Bush, Iraq, and Campaign 2004 - Some early warning signs?

Let's all remember: there's a lot of time, still, until the election in November 2004. A lot can happen in 14 months. Things could turn around in Iraq and the economy could find its sea legs.

But a recent Newsweek poll had more than half the respondents said they wanted someone other than Bush elected next year. If someone on the Democratic side should emerge who can tap into this potential voter discontent in an election year, things could get very interesting. Bush is clearly feeling the heat - that's why he's taking the offensive tomorrow night by speaking to the nation about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. He probably fears that things could really get out of hand later this week when the second anniversary of 9/11 will spark more discussion and analysis of the war on terrorism and how many Americans are frustrated that Osama remains at large and terrorists keep killing Americans and our friends.

Fortunately for Bush, none of the Democrats have established themselves as yet and he still has the dual advantages of being the incumbent and having more money at his disposal. What should cause real concerns for the Bush camp, however, is that the Administration has done little to assuage the three main concerns I believe are causing voters to question Bush's viability as a two-term president:

1. The Administration has a credibility gap thanks to trumped-up evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war and the subsequent finger-pointing and evasiveness throughout the Bush team. This gap has widened in recent weeks due to the Pentagon's refusal to acknowledge that more troops were and are needed in post-war Iraq to secure weapons facilities, key government installations, the UN, and U.S. troops; to hunt for WMD; to destroy Iraqi stockpiles of conventional weapons; to train Iraqi forces; and to maintain general order in the country until the Iraqis can do so themselves.

2. The price tag of the Iraq occupation is soaring. Some analysts predict that Bush will ask Congress for an additional $60 billion or more to finance just one year of the post-war effort. At a time when economic concerns remain across the country - and the deficit is climbing rapidly - spending $60 billion a year for a mission that clearly will last years but is, to date, failing in some glaring ways is likely to become THE issue of the 2004 campaign unless the economy gets in gear and Iraq starts to look less like Liberia and more like - gulp - Bosnia (which ain't so great, but is a lot better off than Iraq right now!).

3. The war on terrorism has had its ups-and-downs, but in spite of some important successes in terms of capturing senior al Qaeda operatives and, probably, thwarting some planned attacks during the past 24 months, Osama bin Laden remains at large, there is a new round of terrorism in Iraq, and al Qaeda has been able to carry out new attacks against Americans and our friends overseas. The war in Iraq - especially since it the post-war situation has failed to meet the public's expectations so far - looks like a poorly-timed distraction from the real threat.

What can Bush do to address these concerns? Well, that's a tall order, however obvious it might seem:

1. Be honest. Tell the American public that we obviously can't cut and run now in Iraq but that it will take more time, people, and money than we anticipated. But remind them that one of the lessons of 9/11 was that you can't let states fail - remember Afghanistan in the 1990s. We're in Iraq for the long haul. The choice is a stable, perhaps democratic Iraq that will be an anchor in the stormy seas of the Middle East or an Iraq mired in chaos and conflict that could turn out to be the headquarters for anti-American terrorism for the 21st century. The American people - and even most Democrats - will get it and go along. It may annoy them to no end, but they will appreciate being treated like intelligent, rational adults. Many feel like Bush and his team did not treat them that way during the months leading up to the Iraq war.

2. Send the troops you need to Iraq. And send more to Afghanistan, too. Do whatever you have to do to show the American people - and the bad guys - that you mean business and that we are making progress.

3. Do more to beef up security here at home. There are too many reports that suggest that, while we have a nice, new Department of Homeland Security, the Administration seems more intent on expanding John Ashcroft's police powers - and violating civil liberties - than making sure ports, nuclear power plants, and other potential targets are made considerably safer. There will be no escaping blame after the next attack if more serious measures are not taken - and soon.