Ever since the Iraq War ended, there has been a lot of speculation on when and where will be the next war. Obvious possibilities are North Korea and Iran. Syria sometimes is mentioned. Cuba has been a thorn in America’s side since Castro took over. And the decision to send peacekeeping troops to Liberia opens the possibility – distant, I hope – that they will be drawn into some West African conflict.
George W. Bush was elected president (or not) in 2000 under the most controversial circumstances since the so-called “corrupt bargain” of 1824, in which the House of Representatives made John Quincy Adams president instead of the vastly more popular Andrew Jackson. In 2004, the Democrats will not only be fighting to regain the White House, they will be spoiling for revenge. No matter who their candidate is, it’s going to be an especially tough and bitter race. Every bone of every skeleton in Bush’s closet will be dragged out and fought over. He will be attacked on everything he did as a corrupt and incompetent Texas oilman before he entered politics, and on everything he didn’t do as governor of Texas, as well as everything he has done or not done in his first term as president. And that’s not counting all those old substance-abuse scandals. All this still might not be enough to unseat him, but it will make his re-election campaign a very unpleasant experience for him.
No American president has ever been voted out of office while a hot war was in progress. (Not even Lyndon Johnson – he simply decided not to run for re-election in 1968, because a hot war was in progress.) The “rally 'round the flag” effect always redounds to the benefit of the sitting administration. “You don’t change horses in mid-stream,” and so on.
You can see where I’m going with this, can’t you?
If he really wanted to, Bush (or whoever is doing his thinking for him) could easily time events so that we get into the next war some time in the summer or fall of 2004 and are still fighting it on election day.
Will he? Is GWB (OWIDHTFH) really that cold, cynical and Machiavellian?
I see it differently. Bitterness is a poor basis for a campaign. The public doesn’t like it, although it appeals to party regulars. Consider the example of Florida gubinatorial race in 2002. The Dems made extra efforts to win because of the vote-counting fiasco in 2000, but Jeb Bush won quite easily.
It’s too late to get traction over old W scandals. The substance abuse and AWOL allegations went nowhere in 2000. OTOH the DUI was very effective, due to the surprise, the timing, and the factual basis. But, in 2004, voters will have no interest at all in Bush’s past, because they know what he’s like in the present, for better or for worse.
He has already sort-of done it, by proclaiming a war on terror. The WOT will not be over next year, and it will work for Bush, especially because the Dems have not offered leadership in that area.
Well not quite. With the aid of a lot of enthusiastic young people and some shaving cream, Senator Eugene McCarthy got 42% of the vote in New Hampshire that year. So, even if he officially chose not to run, Johnson was really forced out by the people due to his war policies.
I was one of those enthusiastic young people. I think we did help encourage Johnson to not run.
However, recall that McCarthy had just lost the winner-takes-all California primary to Bobby Kennedy when Kennedy was assassinated. At that point, the McCarthy campaign had run out of steam, and Johnson could have easily gotten the nomination. Furthermore, I believe if Johnson had run, he would have easily beaten Nixon.
December is right that attempts to go back into Bush’s pre-presidential past will fail. Issues like that work against presidential candidates, because the public is seeking ways to judge the man. But if he’s had four years in office, they’ll know what they’ve got. The election will turn on whether they like him.
And so far, the Dem’s attacks aren’t having much effect. Bush’s popularity ratings aren’t moving much. He was at about 60% before the war, he peaked at about 70% immediately after the war, and now he’s back around 60% again. His popularity for the last two years has remained higher than it was when he first took office.
Bush won’t be judged by his past. He won’t even be judged by the events of today, unless a major scandal arises. Bush will be judged on two things at election time: What the economy looks like then, and what the war on terror looks like then.
If the economy is improving, the jobless rate is falling, Iraq is relatively peaceful and has its own government that is relatively friendly to the U.S., then Bush will get four more years. It’s as simple as that.
On the other hand, if Iraq degenerates into lawlessness or religious extremism, the economy is still sputtering, there is another major terrorist attack that illustrates poor preparation by the Dept of Homeland Defense, then stick a fork in Bush, because he’s done.
First of all, Bush himself is too stupid to be considered Machiavellian, but his advisers Rove and Cheney are all that. Especially Rove, a master of political dirty tricks – the guy really belongs in jail rather than the White House, just on the basis of the kind of person he is.
I doubt if it’ll be necessary for Bush to declare war next year to get re-elected, and in fact I don’t think it would be a good idea, barring an attack from a clearly identifiable nation – say, if North Korea nukes South Korea. Whatever the pubbies might think or say, a lot of folks question the necessity of the Iraq war, and a second war that doesn’t have VERY CLEAR provocation will not fly with anyone but hardcore Pubbie partisans.
A more likely strategem will be that we will be on the brink of war with someone. Alarming facts and issues will be discovered and/or made up, and described to us with the same solemnity as the Nigerian uranium lie. The spin doctors will portray Bush to the conservatives as strongly defending America, and to the moderates as holding fast inthe face of great provocation. There will be much challenging of the patriotism of anybody who doesn’t buy every ounce of swill the Bush admin. churns out. 9/11 will be pointed out repeatedly via saturation ad campaigns.
After the election, if Bush is elected, all fo this will become, well, somewhat less urgent. Things will cool off.
All this is predicated on no new attacks on the U.S. Any major development there, or in the economy, could change everything, one way or t’other.
I thought maybe Palestine would be his next opportunity to do a little terrorist hunting. He needs to get his timing right though. He could take credit for securing peace in Israel and rid the world of a few evil terrorists as well. If he could deliver either Saddam and/or Osama in the meantime…all of this happening at election time.
Oh yeah, he’d be a “shoe in” definitely. (just like good ol’ shoe)
I think his first two wars went a lot faster than expected.
Plus, he still needs to confirm the deaths of Saddam & Osama before he or his daddy can rest easy.
and you bet we’ll be at war, remember the war on terrorism will not be over until we have delivered justice to all the evil ones.
True, but the WOT is not a hot war, it is a cold war with occasional hot stages. (Some American presidents were turned out of office during the Cold War.) I’m trying to focus on the political effect of actually having U.S. troops engaged in combat action on election day.
Sam’s right. Bush won’t lose because of Dem attacks on his past, but the Dems will lose if that’s a significant part of their camapaign tactics.
I think Evil Captor is closer to the truth wrt the OP. I’d be very surprised if we started another war between now and the next election. But it’s possible that the threats that do exist out there, like NK, will be used but Bush to rally the “strong defense” voting block.
I decided to resurrect this thread when I heard (10/9/03) that Congress is voting on sanctions against Syria. Is this a prelude to another war? If so, will combat be in progress on election day 2004?
I don’t think we’ll see our tanks rolling down the streets of Harare or Rangoon anytime soon, no matter how much those regimes might deserve it. So, sanctions /= military action.
I started this thread last October – and because of the current flap over Iran’s possible involvement (however tangential) with the 9/11 attacks, I thought it would be timely to revive it. I don’t think Bush is actually going to try to start a war with Iran, because our forces our stretched too thin as it is – but you never know what a desperate man will do. Is anybody worried?
Seriously, is there even an effort to get a resolution started in Congress for “the next war”? We are all aware, of course, that Congress has to authorize any new military actions and that we’d have to build up forces before the invasion. IOW, even if he REALLY, REALLY wanted to, Bush couldn’t pull it off before November.
Bush declared major hostilities were over two months after the war began. Since then, more than 80 percent of total war deaths have occurred. The war isn’t over by a long shot.
Will there be another war between now and the elections? For the USA to start another war would probably be the most foolish thing this country has ever done. Is Bush that kind of fool? I will for now reserve judgement on that last bit. We could end up in another way before the election but we will not be us firing the first shots. We may get dragged into another war, but I doubt it.
We have enough problems with the war in Iraq right now. We know that. The real question is, is any organization or country crazy enough to exploit our problems and escalate the conflict? If you answer yes, what alternatives do we have at that moment (putting aside internal US politics) to regain any upper hand?
Yes, in fact I’m a chronic worrier. Oh, that there’s going to be another war, probably against Iran, by November? No, I’m not overly worried about that. It was close to a year, IIRC, from the start of jawboning about Iraq through the planning phase to the actual execution of the invasion.
Some sort of airborne strike against targets in Iran (presumably as belated retaliation for that country’s percieved assistance to some of the 9/11 hijackers)? Possibly, and certainly doable before November, but still rather unlikely, methinks.
Plus, although it might garner some hawkish votes, not enough of a war to really nail down the election.
Here’s one way you could read the tea leaves more easily, from personal experience dating back in Oct. '02. Let’s say you happened to know someone who worked for one of the oilfield wild well control companies. Suppose that person one day happened to mention that someone from their company had attended a meeting with US military personnel to discuss contingency plans for putting out a whole lot of well fires in a certain country: well, there you have it, maybe.
Unless something drastic happens, not a chance in hell we’ll be “at war” (apparently that condition doesn’t include being at war with Iraq and/or Afghanistan) during the elections.
AFTER the elections is another story :-p Maybe around 2006.
Will US troops (or at least airmen) be fighting Iranian troops at some point in the near future? I think so. By November? No way. I agree that 2006 is a fair time frame to rile everyone up; esp. if there’s another AQ attack on the US in the meantime.