NBC: Will Bush's war in Iraq push Republicans over the edge?

Will Bush's war in Iraq push Republicans over the edge?

By Alec Russell, Daily Telegraph (the UK's most conservative
newspaper-Tom)

(Filed: 30/11/2005)

Washington

It now seems clear the "tipping point" is behind us. Time and again
last year on the US election trail I would knock on doors in "swing
states" and ask about Iraq, only to find that the polls suggesting
plunging support for the enterprise did not tell the full story. For
all the reasons that we think we know so well - Mr Bush's bravura
soapbox routine; his rival's lack thereof; the conflation of the
September 11 attacks with Saddam Hussein; Americans' desire for a noble
mission; revenge; patriotism; stick with the troops - the heartland
remained behind the war.

No longer. It's not just the polls with their, as the White House would
argue, loaded questions, that are drooping. Last weekend I listened as
three generations of the Williams family sat around the remains of
their Thanksgiving dinner in rural Maine discussing the war. Malcolm
was shot down over the Channel in the Second World War. Michael served
in the USAF in the Sixties. Now a third generation is in uniform and
preparing to serve in Iraq. All backed the war and think it was the
right thing to do. But all agree, sadly, it is time to hear how the
troops will come home.

So what should Mr Bush do today when he gives a "key" speech on the
war? He is due to address the US Naval Academy and is expected to argue
that Iraq's forces have made great progress in taking responsibility
for their own security. That, of course, has long been the official
precondition for allowing the US-led coalition to start withdrawing.

We can expect the usual doughty rhetoric and the now traditional lines:
"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." There may even be the odd
campaign-style flourish. But the pugnacity does not tell the full
story.

All Mr Bush's instincts are against a premature drawdown, or worse
still full withdrawal. Quite rightly, he argues either could prove
disastrous.

But after a series of bungles and scandals he appears to have forfeited
what was traditionally his greatest asset, his bond with the people. He
has also little if any political capital left in Washington to make his
case to stay the course. So effectively have the Democrats and
Republicans gerrymandered the districts that it will be hard for Mr
Bush's party to lose control of Congress next year. But it is not out
of the question.

So behind the scenes the plans are being made for an initial drawdown.

There is nothing official yet. But few in Washington would bet against
the prospect of 40,000-odd troops coming home in plenty of time for
next November's mid-term elections. Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of
State, prepared the ground last week when she said she did not think
"American forces need to be there in the numbers they are for very much
longer".

For those following American politics from afar this will come as no
surprise. For the future of a military adventure to be influenced by
electoral strategists, is, well, so "American". To the glee of some,
but hopefully the despair of more, the Vietnam-style narrative of the
overweening but now humbled leviathan seems well advanced. Day after
day more nuggets are unearthed or charges made that appear to undermine
the Administration's case for going to and record in waging the war.

Yesterday, Britain was granted an extraordinary insight into the
bitterness of the US debate when Lawrence Wilkerson, the ex-chief of
staff of Colin Powell, secretary of state and chief "dove" in Mr Bush's
first term, went on the Today programme to accuse the chief "hawk",
Vice-President *** Cheney, of committing war crimes by pushing for
harsh treatment of detainees.

The narrative over here is a little less clear cut. Those preparing to
take the mothballs off long-forgotten Democratic bunting should bear in
mind that Republican woes will not lead inexorably to their rivals'
triumph. Mr Bush and Mr Cheney are not running for re-election, and the
Democrats remain in difficulties over how to play the war. Many in
Congress backed it at the outset. The argument of Senator John Kerry
and others that they made a terrible mistake does not play well in
households like the Williamses. While talk of 2008 is speculation,
Democrats will be looking with alarm at the rise and rise of Senator
John McCain, the Republican maverick who has savaged the Pentagon over
its handling of the war and yet advocates sending more troops to Iraq.

It is also misleading to imagine that the US is stampeding for the
exit. Barely one in five Americans wants an immediate pull-out. The
clarion cry is withdrawal but "with honour".

There is, however, a weariness, and a sense that Mr Bush has done his
campaigning routine once too often. One Republican senator argues Mr
Bush should consider the "fireside chats" Franklin D Roosevelt used
during the Second World War. But it may be too late for that.

Americans are coming round to the idea that this was a war of choice.
Also, however hard Mr Bush tries, he cannot change the subject. A year
ago the talk was of another Ronald Reagan or even Teddy Roosevelt. Now
Lyndon B Johnson seems more apt.

.

Quantcast