ewsAnalysis Posted on 04/04/2003 5:28:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
ewsAnalysis
WASHINGTON, March 29 — Though the scion of a family steeped in politics and public service, George W. Bush remains a young president who came to the White House with relatively limited knowledge of the world and its ills. Yet for two years he has ridden high in public esteem, thanks to confident leadership after Sept. 11 and a surer political touch than his detractors give him credit for.
Is his luck about to turn in the winds and sands of Iraq?
It is quite true, as administration officials say with metronomic regularity, that coalition forces have scored singular successes in the early days of the war, and it is too early to rule out a speedy conclusion. But there have been military surprises and diplomatic shortfalls.
With every passing day, it is more evident that the failure to obtain permission from Turkey for American troops to cross its territory and open a northern front constituted a diplomatic debacle. With every passing day, it is more evident that the allies made two gross military misjudgments in concluding that coalition forces could safely bypass Basra and Nasiriya and that Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq would rise up against Saddam Hussein.
Already, the commander of American ground forces in the war zone has conceded that the war that they are fighting is not the one they and their officers had foreseen. "Shock and awe" neither shocked nor awed.
Other potential perils lie ahead. Among senior Washington political figures of both parties, four are mentioned most, as follows:
The war could last so long that the American public loses patience, having been conditioned by predictions from American officials (to quote one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney) that Mr. Hussein's government would prove to be "a house of cards." This has not happened yet; the polls indicate that nearly three of four Americans remain unshaken in their support of Mr. Bush's war policies, despite surprises on the battlefield. The White House believes that public patience, often fickle in recent years, was fortified by 9/11.
Street-by-street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad and other cities — an eventuality that American strategists have long sought to avoid — now looks more likely. Mr. Hussein's aides have promised savage resistance. If it materializes, it could produce large coalition casualties, challenging American resolve, and equally large Iraqi civilian casualties, with dire consequences for the coalition's attempt to picture itself as the liberator of Iraq. A heart-rending picture of a wounded 2-year-old was widely published today after a Baghdad market was ripped apart by an explosion Iraqi officials attributed to a coalition bomb.
Saddam Hussein could escape, denying the war effort a definitive totem of victory. It sounds improbable, given the terrifying array of force available to the coalition, but other notorious figures remain at large despite intensive manhunts, including the wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Al Qaeda mastermind, Osama bin Laden.
The hunt for weapons of mass destruction could prove futile — a development that would make the war look like a wild-goose chase.
Of course, all that is a worst case prognosis. As the war in Afghanistan showed, hard military slogging can give way suddenly to victory. But will victory in Iraq take the shape the United States so badly needs?
Mr. Hussein seems to have decided that he can turn this war into Vietnam Redux. He appears willing to take casualties and to give away territory to gain time. Over time, his strategy implies, he thinks he can isolate the United States and build a coalition of third world nations. Already he is seen as less of an ogre and more of a defender of Islamic honor across the Arab world.
Most Republicans radiate confidence in not only military but also political and diplomatic success.
The longtime Republican pollster Robert Teeter said recently, "If we've gotten rid of Saddam and stabilized Iraq, then things will look pretty good." Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, steadfast in his argument that that is precisely what will happen, told the naysayers on Friday that "it's a bit early for history to be written."
Democrats are more dubious.
"Saddam won't win," said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States representative at the United Nations. "Unlike L.B.J. in Vietnam, Bush won't quit. He's a different kind of Texan. He'll escalate and keep escalating. In the end his military strategy will probably succeed in destroying Saddam.
"But it may result in a Muslim jihad against us and our friends. Achieving our narrow objective of regime change may take so long and trigger so many consequences that it's no victory at all. Our ultimate goal, which is promoting stability in the Middle East, may well prove elusive."
Mr. Bush came to office determined, by his own account, not to swagger and not to overreach. "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us," he said in the second presidential debate against Al Gore in 2000. "If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us." That was a promise to check hubris at the door, an effort to guard against the temptation to believe that because he had such awesome power at his fingertips, he could and should use it to achieve grandiose objectives.
Like remaking a chaotic region in our own democratic image.
The very term "shock and awe" has a swagger to it, no doubt because it was intended to discourage Mr. Hussein and his circle. But it rings hollow now, and there are other signs of overconfidence. A reserve officer was told some time ago, for example, that he would be needed as part of a provisional government in Baghdad, on March 28.
For the moment, Mr. Bush seems secure. People like him. None of his possible Democratic opponents loom as a major threat, not so far.
Still, for presidents, especially for wartime leaders, political capital can drain quickly from the White House account. After the guns fall silent, voters' eyes turn elsewhere, often to social and economic needs. It happened to Winston Churchill late in World War II, and as this president remembers better than most, it happened to his father, too.
Good God. Even now, after all the evidence to the contrary, the left still clutches desperately to it's manufactured fantasy that paints GW as some dumb hick. At this point, no one but the stupidest drone is buying it any longer; no one with half a brain believes this crap any more than the leftmedia itself.
This is good, actually -- nothing gives the battle away quicker than underestimating one's opponent. And these losers continue to wonder why they're such... losers!
Oh, this guy really nails it. He's got the two big reasons we lost this war and had so many of our troops slaughtered. Maybe nexy time we'll let the leftists run the diplomatic and military affairs.
*Axis of Internal Evil! Borrowed from Sierra Wasp, and then modified a little.
John, maybe you can refer to all of the American anti GW mobsters as the Axis of Internal Evil in future writings.
Excellent suggestion, Grampa *Wicked grin, from ear-to-ear*
Someone (the RNC?) should run an ad on national TV that says, "The following people or organizations were against the war, said we would lose, didn't support our troops or our president or hoped for our defeat. Just thought you should know." and then scroll down the names ... John Kerry, Tom Daschle, RW Apple, etc. etc. etc.
I LOL when I read the left describe President Bush's grand design to take over the world. I remember when the media was making fun of candidate Bush because he didn't know geography, didn't know world leaders' names, and didn't seem interested in anything outside our own borders. The media made fun of him because he wasn't sophisticated enough to engage in world affairs, and would be an isolationist president.
The American people didn't believe the media then, and they don't believe them now. They understand President Bush's motives for this war, they know it has nothing to do with imperialism, revenge, or greed.
Couldn't have been said better ;)
Terrible, terrible week..hehe
Intrepid prediction: Johnny crawls back into his scummy hole, like he did after Kabul fell to the Allies two weeks after his Afghan quagmire article.
I nominate this for quote of the day!
Someone (the RNC?) should run an ad on national TV that says, "The following people or organizations were against the war, said we would lose, didn't support our troops or our president or hoped for our defeat. Just thought you should know." and then scroll down the names ... John Kerry, Tom Daschle, RW Apple, etc. etc. etc.
You won't be able to fit all that into a 30-second TV ad unless you run the names really fast or have the font really small
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.