From the Dec 4 – Dec 10, 2003 issue

News

Bush in Baghdad

How to Lose Iraq and Still Get Reelected

by Sandeep Kaushik

President Bush deserves to be reelected in 2004. Why? Not because he stabilized Iraq. In all likelihood, Iraq will remain a complete mess come next November. No, you should reelect George Bush because he's a good guy. Because he cares. Because he feels. Because even when he does the wrong thing--like, say, invading Iraq--he does it for the right reasons. He means well. And even when those bad decisions blow up in his face, he stays the course, because he's confident, and constant, and compassionate.

That, at least, was the domestic political message implicit in Bush's dramatic Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Baghdad. But will that message win Bush a second term?

There is little question that in the short term Bush's trip was a major public-relations success. "A gutsy decision," "great political theater," and "admirable and the right thing to do" were some of the glowing assessments from commentators collected by the Washington Post. "A perfect television story," the New York Times declared. The image of Bush in a First Armored Division jacket doling out Thanksgiving dinner to cheering American soldiers was irresistible. "HAIL TO THE CHEF," the cover text of the New York Post blared below the ubiquitous photo of Bush hoisting a turkey on a platter. Reacting to the visit, Bush's Democratic opponents either were stunned into grudging praise or found themselves churlishly pointing out that one two-and-a-half-hour morale-boosting trip to Iraq didn't compensate for the lack of an effective plan to stabilize the occupied nation.

But how perceptions of the trip will play out over time--particularly over the crucial 11 months between now and the next presidential election--will depend on how amenable the electorate is to giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Iraq fiasco. In the increasingly unlikely event that the U.S. effort soon shows signs of success, as measured by the rapid creation of a viable Iraqi governing authority and the reduction of deadly attacks on American troops, Bush's visit will be hailed as a remarkable turning point and as proof of the president's courageous determination to persevere in the face of adversity. If, however, as we have every reason to expect, Iraq remains violent, unsettled, and insecure, Bush's move to link himself to Iraq could come back to haunt him.

But maybe not. If voters judge Bush through the prism of how well Iraq goes, he's probably doomed. But if they judge Iraq through the prism of how well they like and trust Bush, he will win next November. Bush's Iraq visit should help frame the situation there in the latter manner. It may not seem this way in liberal, Bush-hating Seattle, but most Americans actually like the president personally even when they disapprove of his policies or think he's doing a bad job overall; the Los Angeles Times found earlier this month that only about 20 percent of Americans are classifiable as Bush-haters. His reelection could well depend on whether the other 80 percent of voters will demand real signs of progress in Iraq, or whether the president's apparent good intentions will be enough to keep the voters on his side.

Objectively--the administration's desperate spin and glib, ever-shifting rationalizations aside--Iraq has so far been a bust for the Bushies. No WMD found, no significant links to al Qaeda, no Saddam Hussein, the constant corroding drip of near-daily casualties. In fact, with the economy now showing signs of a robust recovery, Iraq is far and away the single biggest obstacle standing between Bush and a second term. It wasn't supposed to be this way. The administration intended to spin a quick, clean win over a weakened tinhorn tyrant into political gold.

So eager were the Bushies to capitalize on Iraq that the White House political shop jumped the gun in setting up the now-infamous May 1 photo op of a smirking Bush strutting across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in a crotch-enhancing flight suit before declaring an end to major combat in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Since then, 188 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq combat--79 in November alone--and the U.S. military has found itself pinned down by an increasingly successful and sophisticated guerrilla insurgency. And things are likely to get worse before they get better--if they get better at all. The triumphalist "Mission Accomplished" imagery now seems so out of step with reality that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has begun using the aircraft-carrier images in his campaign ads. And in July Bush compounded his out-of-touch-with-reality image when, in the face of mounting violence against American troops, he fell back on tinny bravado with a comment--"Bring 'em on"--that practically invited further attacks on servicemen. In October, Bush laughably tried claiming that the increasingly deadly attacks were a sign of American progress--they indicated the growing desperation of the "cold-blooded killers, terrorists," he said. Yeah, right. Trotting out an argument that weak made Bush sound like he was the desperate one.

Given these disastrous public-relations flubs, Bush needed to redefine the terms of the Iraq debate. The Thanksgiving visit to the troops was Bush's attempt to do so by turning the issue into a referendum on his personal qualities. Bush appeared resolute, telling the cheering troops, "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator, and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." Yet he also came across as realistic: "You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will," he conceded.

Of course, most Americans didn't hear the speech. They did see the images, and those images were simple, direct, and easy to understand. The president shares the sacrifices of our frontline troops, even at considerable personal risk. If he went to Iraq, he must really believe in the mission.

But the positive impact of those images could turn out to be ephemeral, particularly if Bush's mouth continues to get him in trouble. When he's feeling cornered, Bush tends to fall back on cornpone macho cowboy lingo. In the context of a dicey Iraq situation, that sort of talk sounds desperate and phony. A few more "Bring 'em on"s and the memory of the photo could be obliterated. Bush's handlers are aware of the problem--there's a reason the president calls so few press conferences--but in a hard-fought presidential campaign, Bush is going to have to make himself available to the press. And whomever the Democrats nominate is going to relentlessly hammer Bush on Iraq. He will have to respond, and in the high tension of a presidential debate it's easy to picture him saying something typically idiotic.

The reality on the ground in Iraq hasn't changed at all in the wake of Bush's visit. The intense secrecy and elaborate security precautions--Air Force One landing in darkness, even Bush's parents being kept in the dark about the trip, Bush confined to the safety of a heavily fortified military complex--all served to highlight just how screwed-up the situation in Iraq actually is. Within hours of Bush's departure, another American serviceman was killed. Two more Americans died over the weekend, as did two Japanese diplomats and seven Spanish intelligence officers. There are certainly more deaths to come, with no end in sight.

But when it comes to domestic politics, maybe that doesn't really matter. President Bush's crack reelection team understands that in politics image often counts more than reality. One thing we can be sure of regarding Iraq is that we're going to see more preelection images of Bush that emphasize his compassionate-conservative side. Remember--and Karl Rove isn't likely to let you forget--President Bush cares. He means well, and honestly tries to do the right thing. He'll keep at this Iraq mess until he gets it right. Provided we reelect him.