Why would a war with Iraq be an election helper for Bush?

Great Debates
21

Yes, I agree that this is how the Bush administration handles its critics. What has this to do with the question of Iraq?

It looks to me as if the OP is responding to statements made in other threads to the effect that a war with Iraq would be “sure” to boost Mr. Bush’s approval ratings, an assertion the OP questions. The implication of this “conventional wisdom” is that the Bush administration would take the popularity effect into account when planning the timing of any possible military action, but not necessarily base our military strategy on that effect. (Although many cynical political observers had no problem ascribing that motivation to Bush’s predecessor. Seems to me to be just as valid a suspicion now as it was five years ago.)

22

I woulod submit that none of those examples is valid.

  • The Mexican War was fought based on real and alleged offenses against American settlers. This may be your best example, but it was well before the press was anywhere near like it is today or even during…

  • The Spanish-American War. Remember the Maine! Sure, it was probably just an accident, but in 1898 it was useful for whipping people up.

  • U.S. entry into World War I was precipitated by Germany committing an act of war. Actually, multiple acts of war. Sinking American merchant ships is pretty obviously a “threat.”

I’d say the one REALLY good example would be the War of 1812, which was quite unpopular, although its unpopularity was in part due to a series of military debacles early in the war.

The war against Iaq isn’t going to happen. I don’t think it will happen this year, next year, or the year after. It’s not going to happen because

  1. Iraq is the Washington Baseball Market of the War on Terror. Major League Baseball doesn’t have a team in Washington, D.C. even though it’s a big market because Washington is where you can threaten to move a team in order to blackmail people into building stadiums for you. If the folks in wherever balk at ponying up $500 million for a new stadium, they start talking about moving a team to Washington, and presto, the state legislature slams through a stadium bill to “Save The Brewers!”

Iraq plays that role for the President. If you invade Iraq and turn it into a nice little democratic state, you no longer have a bogeyman to blame for everything. I guess you could just come up with another one, but Saddam Hussein is a legitimately evil nutbar who makes the perfect whipping boy because he isn’t actually very dangerous, so there’s no risk in keeping him around. And with British help and U.N. approval, you can bomb him every now and then. Why cook the goose and give up the golden eggs? Iraq’s the goose; the little conflicts are the golden eggs.

  1. It’s Friggin’ Stupid. I don’t think Bush is a genius, either, and I don’t think Colin Powell is half as smart as he’s given credit for being, and I think Ashcroft’s unfir for public office and Cheney is a weasel. But these people aren’t RETARDED.

A flagrant war of aggression against Iraq would be a disaster on so many fronts I don’t know where to begin. It would be a diplomatic nightmare that would make Bush’s previous fauxs pas look like peanuts. Invaluable support in the Arab world would be lost for good, the Israel-Palestine conflict would be worsened, and Islamicists would gain moral high ground throughout the world.

It’s also potentially a military quagmire. I know the last war was easy, but actually taking Baghdad might kill a lot of American soldiers. I guess it COULD go easily, but then again it might not. Once you let the military cat out of the bag and the shells are flying, things can develop you never anticipated. What if Arab “volunteers” pour in from other countries to help Iraq? What if Iraq breaks out the mustard gas? Backed against a wall, who knows if Saddam will resort to chemical weapons?

All that adds up to the potential of a serious loss of domestic support. If there’s widespread support for a war in Iraq, I don’t see it. If 500 U.S. soldiers die in a military snafu, what’s that going to do to Bush’s approval rating?

  1. There’s no damned point. I’m assuming here that Iraq has little to do with the 9/11 attacks or any similar plans, which I don’t know for sure, but let’s suppose it’s true and Bush and his people know it.

No matter hwo you slice it, a war on Iraq is potentially a hideous minefield of cost, time, and potential risk. Is it REALLY worth it to George W. Bush to expend his political capital and his resources on it? Gee, I don’t think so. Even if I look at this with the crassest and most cynical filters, I don’t see this being a good gamble for George.

23

Stoid:

As Brutus said, people like victory. A successful war makes people feel good, and it gives the President the opportunity to show that he’s made of stern stuff. He gets to show up on TV and make a lot of speeches, and it becomes unpatriotic to look at either him or the war critically.

These are not good reasons to have a war. I certainly didn’t think it was cool to attack Clinton on a “wag the dog” scenario, and I don’t think it’s cool to attack Bush on one, especially since it hasn’t happened yet.

I doubt attacking Saddam could be construed as unprovoked either. The anthrax likely orgiginates with him, and he’s been a supporter of terrorist activities against the US.

When someone is seeking weapons of mass destruction with the stated purpose of using them against the general US populace, I have no problem with a preemptive strike.

Personally, I don’t think either Bush or Clinton would have been willing to wage war to get a few temporary approval points, and I’m pretty disdainful of people who automatically operate from that assumption.

24

I’d like to point out that in Australia our Prime Minister, (Jackboot) John Howard and his ‘Liberal’ party (For those who are not Aust. the Australian liberal party are a conservative, soft right, economic rationalist party.) have gained a lot of popularity due to America’s war on ‘terror’. The Australian Government has already offered the US unconditional support in their war on who ever they claim are ‘terrorist’. Along with the inhumain detention of asylum seekers and their children, the US crusade has given our Government a very convenient and effective distraction from domestic policy.

PS~ America seems to think they and theirs are due special treatment in Global politics ie. their disgusting refusal to submit, as most other (arguably more domcratic) democracies have, to a world court so that NO nation and its warmongers, including America, is above international law. I’m sorry if you thought American soviereignty was more important than seeing war criminals held responcible for the actions reguardless of nationality. I have done a lot of reading and talking in recent years and I honestly believe the average American has very little idea of just how low their Government has, and will, stoop to stay on top. Watching commercial news on cable, Aust and US, it is apparent that these stations, at a high level, actively engage in properganda and the promotion of mis-information through blatant omission. God Bless!!

25

Scylla, do you have a cite for the assertion that the anthrax mailed about in this country “likely originates” with Saddam Hussein? Most reports I’ve read seem to point to US military research labs as the most probable source.

26

xeno:

Nope, I don’t. I’m just going from memory about some shipments of Anthrax that were sent to Iraq, and a news story that said the strain was the same as the one we were attacked with.

27

I really hope you’re being fasecious (never mind the spelling, please). Call me a cockeyed optomist, but I seriously doubt that any administration would deliberately allow a dangerous regime to remain in power just so that they can have a “whipping boy” to bomb every now and again. I more or less agree with your other points, though.

Don’t get carried away. I don’t think SPOOFE’s point was that conservatives were somehow innocent of such behavior. It struck me instead as a round criticism of such behavior in general. Two wrongs do not make a right. That’s what Mom said.

28

There was speculation of that kind quite some time ago, but suspicions seem to have shifted to point a domestic source.

29

Oh, I understood SPOOFE’s point, Kyomara. I just didn’t think it addressed your point about the public’s willingness to believe the Bush administration would stoop so low. I find the charge that airing suspicions of the administration’s motives is an attempt to “get rid” of them through demonization rather silly.

30

Didn’t you pay attention during the Clinton years? How many right wingers will yelling “Wag the Dog!” during the Bosnia conflict?

31

Stoid - Just saw this thread before posting to the thread where you originally posed the question. If you’ll excuse a little you-ain’t-from-'round-here-boy perspective, I wanted to make a different point or two.:

IMHO, there are fewer things more mind warping than the multi-layered, multi dimensional constituencies surrounding a two horse presidential election race. The present incumbent is busy addressing various socio-economic, geographical, political and financial groups with steel tariffs, $190 billion in faming subsidies, calculating an Environmental policy that (maybe) loses a little in bicoastal (anti Big Oil) suburbia but win elsewhere (it was beginning to look, prior to 9/11, that both his Energy policy and the ‘Environment’ were rising in the electorate’s agenda and influencing Bush’s approval rating)…on and on. We know that.

And, actually, all that’s just for the mid terms, which, it’s worth remembering, is where we are now. I think it would be naive to ignore the significance of these elections in the current Administration mind set, even with regard an Iraqi war: Resisting slippage now that would make 2004 even more difficult than it is already.

Then, into that semi-controllable rolling landscape, we have galloping Enron, Worldcom, corporate greed, market instability …all of which need to be addressed by the Administration. It sure wasn’t meant to be this way.

And in the middle of all that comes Saddam Two/Gulf War Two – where does this potentially fit within the ever-growing Bush ‘bunker mentality’ now, rather than for 2003/4.

Well, first and foremost, it’s not domestic and as (maybe) Tip O’Neil once said “All politics is local” – Chuchill after the 1945 General Election would have agreed, as would others. No real modern precedence to suggest war victories in themselves get you re-elected (nb. EISENHOWER, a ‘war hero’ coming into politics). It’s the economy, stupid - as Bush 43 sure remembers.

Anyway, lets assume the Bush Administration characterises the *build up * to a possible Iraqi war along the following simple sound bite, easily digestible lines:

“We knew that drug-funded Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists, we knew a-Q had carried out attacks against the US (numerous), had some other foiled (LAX, WTC in 1993, possibly the Eiffel Tower, etc), had others planned. We knew they had the means and the motivation. We knew they would try something. And we did nothing…Saddam…weapons of mass destruction… most significant threat to the American way of life…”

That doesn’t win him anything by itself but I’d suggest it provides glue between the other (largely domestic) planks in his mid term strategy, as the country is, apparently, gearing up to face the enemy.. Not at war, but beginning to face the reality of a war.

  • Firstly, it solidifies any wavering Republicans – not wavering away from the Party, but wavering towards apathetic non-voting. Crucial to keep the GOP base on board with some serious flag waving opportunities…

  • As said, It does make it harder for Democrats to question him as a leader of a country increasingly on a war footing – anyone taking bets on reserves being notified of possible call ups pre-mid terms ?

  • Sure, it’s a distraction from what else maybe hitting the headlines around the mid terms – the fallout from the corporate meltdown isn’t going to go away by November. Not if the Democrats have anything to do with it.

  • Bush can also extent the patriotic rhetoric to include (well, he already does) protecting ‘American jobs’, the need for a more independent, US-orientated energy policy, almost anything can be spun…all with implicit nationalistic/patriotic undertones. A lot of potential negatives can be reduced in their effect.

  • You also have less to prove, to justify, in November apropos ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (if the potential Iraqi campaign is scheduled for January +) – this is potentially shaky ground as it was the UN/US that pulled out of Iraq and the UN/US Inspection team who later admitted spying on behalf of the West. As Saddam had himself claimed. …different issue but a potential problem area.

  • It could be argued the Democrats would have a hard job avoiding stigmatising themselves as the pre-9/11, head in the sand, unpatriotic, soft on terror…yada, yada, Party.

The president deserves our support…

32

Sorry I was late responding to this, but…here we go.

The press was nothing but innuendo and yellow journalism, and the Mexicans were well within their rights to defend land that was theirs, as we were occupying it illegally. Those settlers were settling on land that was not ours, then claiming that they were being attacked without justification.

Yet another case of aggression on our behalf for some alleged incident. Remember that the Maine was blown up under very mysterious circumstances. We used that as a casus belli, and the fact is that to this day we still have no idea what happened, so it was a poor excuse for aggression against Spain. My own feeling, having read up on it a little bit, was we just wanted Spain out of the way once and for all.

**

We literally BEGGED to be drawn into that war. Our merchant ships were being attacked because we were supplying a combatant, thus placing ourselves in the position of trying to maintain “neutrality” while not really being neutral at all. Once again, kinda shady, but it gave us the excuse we were looking for.

The war of 1812 was a direct result of us not leaving Great Britain’s shipping alone, giving them the opening to harass us, which in turn precipitated our declaration of war. They would never have messed with us if we had just left them alone. They were done with us after 1781.

The point of all that is to prove that historically, America hasn’t needed a good excuse to garner support for war. We declare an enemy, or manufacture one, and the populace goes along with it, which, incidentally, is what we’re supposed to do. We elect our representatives, they make decisions that are supposed to be beneficial for us. If they decide that attacking Iraq is necessary, then I’ll be the first one on the plane, whether I agree with it or not. That’s not my decision to make. But you’ll never convince me that we do anything for the greater good of mankind. We do things so that we can get something out of it. Always have, always will.

I’m fairly certain that it will happen. Between Saddam’s desabilizing influence in the region, his blatant defiance of the rules laid upon him as the loser of the Gulf War, and Bush’s ego, I’m betting that we’ll go after him in the next 2-3 years. All the posturing recently points to no other conclusion for me. Given that, Bush would be a fool not to use it to garner support for his re-election. Yes, it’s cynical, but it’s obvious.

33

I was watching the BBC yesterday, and on an show called “Hardtalk,” Richard Perle was interviewed. He was much more definite in his statements than in the linked interview: the US is going to conduct an operation against Saddam which will result in regime change, and it will occur sooner rather than later. He said that any nation which did not support the US was not our friend, and indeed supported terrorism. I did not see the whole interview, so I did not see if he made reference to the fact that, when Saddam was “gassing his own people” as GWB likes to remind us, he was our friend. He did make the obligatory anti-Clinton jab, but it was minor. Overall his tone was smug- he thinks his POV has carried the day in the GWB administration.

News outside the US, not being bound by “liberal media bias:rolleyes:,” gives a different, and much more ominous, picture of what our government is doing. JDM

34

If you think that you have the right to decide for America what it should do, then it seems to me that you’re the one demanding special treatment.

35

I believe you are absolutely correct, but with respect to American public support it doesn’t matter what YOU OR I think. It matters what Americans back then thought.

(Spanish-American War)

Ditto. AT THE TIME people believed Spain did it.

Ditto again.

I would have to argue that the issue of shipping was not, in fact, the primary reason the U.S. got into that war; eliminating British opposition to westward expansion was probably the greater motivation, but anyway, ditto again.

I remain unconvinced… but we’ll see. I’m not sure Bush will be President in three years. He is, really, a pretty bad President, and the war honeymoon effect will wear off before November 2004.

36

I think my point got lost somewhere along the way here…Stoid asked if there were any wars undertaken that were not:

I respectfully submit that all of my examples fit the bill in this case.

My point, of course, being that if Bush attacks Iraq, he shouldn’t have any trouble drumming up support for himself, justified attack or not. As history has amply borne out, Americans always support their President in time of war. And given our national antipathy towards Iraq, I would venture that a war would get an enormous amount of support.

37

Do we really have a * national antipathy * towards Iraq? I don’t think so. I think we have a national indifference, with the exception of a handful of people.