Abstract
Forget about domestic issues. Whoever wins the presidency in November will be consumed with one thing–Iraq.
Regardless of the outcome this November, the president sworn in on January 20, 2005 will find himself and his team almost completely consumed by the disaster in Iraq.
Both candidates have discussed improving health care, making prescription drugs more affordable, stimulating the country's economy by increasing the supply of well-paying jobs, and helping students deal with the high cost of college.
If Sen. John Kerry is elected, progressives will lobby for increasing health-care coverage, stronger environmental regulations, and closing tax loopholes. Arms control advocates will work for a quick termination of research on a new generation of nuclear weapons, the end to deployment of a national missile defense, the rapid expansion of programs to safeguard the world's supply of nuclear bomb materials, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and resurrecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
A George W. Bush victory will prompt conservatives to push for new tax cuts hand in hand with austere measures to clamp down on the federal budget deficit, shrink the federal government, and protect against the “scourges” of abortion, gay marriage, and the erosion of family values. Neoconservatives will press to spread democracy beyond Iraq to other countries in the Middle East.
However, all these plans and dreams are likely to be pushed aside by the president and his top national security team as they attempt to deal with the disaster that is Iraq–just as President Lyndon Johnson's plans for a Great Society were overwhelmed by the war in Vietnam.
While much of the debate during the campaign has dealt with Bush's decision to wage war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq's connection to the war on terrorism, serious proposals for finding a path out of the quagmire in Iraq have been largely absent.
In September, shortly after the Republican National Convention, an important milestone was reached: U.S. fatalities topped 1,000, with an additional 7,000 wounded. Since the “hand over” of power to an Iraqi government, American casualties have been rising. In addition, there are increasing casualties among Iraqi civilians, both those working for Americans and innocent bystanders.
While the president was barnstorming the country, boasting of eliminating Saddam Hussein from power and talking optimistically about Iraq's increasing stability and its path to democracy, the facts on the ground and in newspaper headlines belied his claims: increasing attacks on government and U.S. forces with deadly results, daily car bombings, major areas of the country under insurgent control, the country's infrastructure in shambles, and hopes for free and fair elections in January fading.
A National Intelligence Estimate prepared in July 2004 that was leaked to the New York Times provided a more pessimistic–and realistic–analysis than that suggested by Bush. As described by unnamed national security officials in a September 16 New York Times article, the estimate provides three possible outcomes for Iraq by the end of 2005. The most favorable outcome described an Iraq “whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic, and security terms.” The least favorable outcome was the path to civil war.
An anonymous government source concluded about the real situation in Iraq: “There's a significant amount of pessimism.”
The difficulties have led the Bush administration to ask Congress to transfer more than $3 billion of the $18.4 billion appropriated for rebuilding Iraq to fund projects aimed at enhancing security, primarily to train Iraqi security personnel. This request came on the heels of an administration admission that only $1.1 billion of that urgently needed money appropriated almost a year ago had been spent.
What to do? President Bush promises more of the same while remaining relentlessly optimistic. Major decisions on troop deployments and offensive actions have been largely put off until after the November elections to avoid even greater American casualties.
Kerry, on the other hand, has spoken of greater international involvement in keeping the peace through both NATO and the United Nations, although there is little evidence that his hopes will be realized. He also wants to expand training for Iraqi security forces and increase reconstruction efforts. There is little evidence that these steps will make much difference.
Members of Congress have enthusiastically joined in the argument over how we got into Iraq and which candidate will best protect the United States. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar used a September 15 hearing–his twenty-third on the war in Iraq by his count–to criticize the “blithely optimistic people from the administration prior to the war…. The nonsense of all that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, in the same hearing, complained: “This is how we get into trouble when we delude ourselves into thinking that we have done something we haven't done.”
But these members of Congress have been as barren as the candidates for president in putting forth alternative policies.
Neither politicians nor most of the national security community appear to have a clue about what to do next. Indeed, the situation is more and more reminiscent of Vietnam. Whatever one's view of the American invasion, the conflict appears more and more like a quagmire, with no easy way out.
Even critics on the left who decry the decision to invade and the false justifications for the war are reluctant to advocate immediate withdrawal of American forces. The approach of many on the left is the logical “we broke it, we should fix it.”
That reasoning was best expressed by French President Jacques Chirac. Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, quoted comments from Chirac in the September 15 hearing: “The worst mistake you all made was sending in 150,000 American forces. The only mistake to be worse than that would be pulling them out.”
Immediate withdrawal of American forces would be a disaster; but the only thing likely to be more disastrous is keeping U.S. forces in. Pulling out of Iraq may lead to civil war, and occupation of parts of the country by Iran, Turkey, Syria, and other neighbors, and a safe harbor for terrorists. On the other hand, retaining 150,000 American troops in Iraq will continue to provide enticing targets for insurgents and terrorists, lead to greater American application of force, resulting in heavier civilian casualties, the increased alienation of the Iraqi people, and a convenient recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, further undermining the American position in the world.
Withdrawal is simplistic and dangerous; staying is complex and even more dangerous.
As a second Bush administration shuffles its key national security personnel or an incoming Kerry team struggles to secure confirmation for key cabinet and sub-cabinet officials–a process that will take at least nine months–either president will immerse himself in the details of the terrible choices in Iraq.
A reelected President Bush will know he is a lame duck as of January 2005, and a President Kerry will understand that he has little time to establish a government and demonstrate success at home and abroad while enjoying a political honeymoon.
The president may long to focus on taxes or health care or deficits or education, but he will be consumed with Iraq. In the meantime, Congress, which is quicker to organize itself for new legislative business, will press the president's appointees for solutions and hold hearings with a gamut of experts.
Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon twisted and turned in the futile search for options to turn the tide in Vietnam. In the end, it was Sen. George Aiken, the late Vermont Republican, who had it right: “Declare victory and go home.”