These are the three words that will replace "Four More Years" as the mantra that will propel President George W. Bush to a second term in the White House. Four years ago, who woulda thunk that George "Can't String Three Words Together" Bush would one day stand on the cusp of being one of the greatest American Presidents in history? Well this might (might!) be an exaggeration, but it's getting more and more likely that people, well Americans anyway of 2053 will look back on George W. Bush as one of the more important Presidents in recent history....and in a good way. And all his father, the former President George H.W. Bush said back then was that his son would be a better president than he was. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Of course when I say "great" this is obviously from an American point of view. Back in 1991, with Saddam's army in Kuwait, in control of 20% of the world's oil suppy, President Hussein too was on the "cusp of greatness." History didn't work out that way, and of the two presidents, George Bush is now the one who has any chance of being "great."
Now before they go carving George's face on Mount Rushmore, there are still a lot of dominos have to be lined up; a LOT. While President Bush is setting up his dominos, any maniac could very well come along and bump one, knocking them all down, making Georgie look like the abject failure many assume (or desperately hope) he will become.
By the way, did I already say a lot of dominos needed to be lined up?
Capturing Saddam Hussein is the biggest domino, given that the dead-as-a-doornail Osama won't be found (see below.) The disheveled "cowardly" Saddam, looking like a homeless Santa Claus, captured "without firing a shot," "like a rat in a hole," could very well take much of the wind out of the sails of many still wanting to take a shot at an American soldier. Failing that, it will certainly stiffen the backbone of those who want to live in a more open post-Saddam Iraq. Now everybody knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that any future Iraq will not have Saddam Hussein at the helm.
Loyalists to the old regime (and others) still might want to kill Americans, and some no doubt will, but now that their leader is utterly finished and humiliated, who are they fighting for? While they figure this out, reform-minded Iraqis, with coalition help could very well push Iraq along to the point where the future looks pretty bright indeed. The more time the good guys have to work, the less attractive fighting looks, although there will always be those longing for the good old days, and terrorisrm will be fact of like in Iraq for a long long, long long long time.
Already in Iraq, the production of oil is up to pre-war capacity, much of the infrastructure is coming back up including health care, and an Iraqi government is being brought up to speed. Many problems obviously still need to be addressed, like the average of at least one American still being killed per day or the fact that half of the soldiers in the new Iraqi army are up and quitting. By and large however, everything's starting to come up roses for the President, and oh yes incidentally, the Iraqi people.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, President Bush has been racking up the victories:
- Afghanistan, which of course today threatens to degenerate into chaos, famine, disease and civil war, but the Taliban are gone and from an American point of view, as long as the Afghans are pre-occupied with each other, it's good news for the States.
- Osama Bin Laden, who is so obviously dead. Until Al Queda can produce a video tape of the old fellow holding a recent newspaper, then I'll bet you he's more than half way through his virgins by now.
- The terrorists of the world are on the run. With all of the anti-terrorist activity Bush is promoting around the world, it's certainly keeping Al Queda and other groups preoccupied looking over their shoulders. Sure they've had some notable moments over the past 2 years, but if they were able to duplicate September 11 somewhere, don't you think they would have?
- The economy humming along nicely. Not anything Bush should by all rights be able to take full credit for, but hey, who ever said life was fair?
- Iraq. Capturing Saddam changes everything. All of the problems up to this point will be forgotten for a while. Over the next few months, before, during, and after his trial, we'll hear horror stories from all sides about the killings, the mass graves, the Iraq push for a nuclear bomb, the "weapons of mass destruction." Already the world community is expressing its satisfaction that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Pretty soon, invading Iraq will have been the "right thing to do," and it'll be hard to find anybody who will say otherwise. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history...not even the French it would seem.
All Bush has to do to coast to victory in 2004 is to keep the pressure on Al Quada and various other terrorist organizations, preventing them from doing something big and obvious somewhere in the United States, bring Iraq far enough along so that he can plausibly claim that Iraqis are now "better off than they were under Saddam Hussein," which includes preventing a "new and improved" dictatorship from taking over, and keep the lid on the Israeli/Palestinian thing. As long as the economy doesn't tank in the next 11 months, the President is a shoe-in for a Reagan vs. Mondale type of victory.
A lot of "ifs" I know, but all of the above is on track, and with Bush at the top of his game, the United States will be able to get more international cooperation and support, and it's not likely that Iran, North Korea, or anybody else will want to attract the swaggering President's attention in any serious way for at least the next few months. The inevitable conviction of Saddam Hussein for "Crimes Against the Iraqi People" before November 2004 will give Bush another boost just as his polling numbers will be sagging.
And look who he's up against.
If Howard Dean ends up as Bush's main opponent, it will prove only that the Democrats have more courage to commit suicide than Saddam Hussein did. The Republicans will easily be able to convince the voting public that a Dean presidency will take all of the hard work done by Bush (and the soldiers, don't ever forget the soldiers) over the past four years and toss it into the dumpster. This argument has the advantage of being so obviously true. Even if going to war against Iraq was illegal and wrong, now that it has been done, the United States cannot afford to elect a President who is ashamed of it. I can see the Republican ads already: "President Bush brought Saddam Hussein to justice. If it were up to Howard Dean, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering his own people."
At least a Howard Dean vs. George Bush contest would be a real choice, and probably very interesting, not to mention divisive. All the other candidates now running for the Democratic Party's nomination are already tripping over each other in their support for the President in the wake of Saddam's capture. It will be hard to distance themselves if and when the going gets tough again. It's not going to be rainbows and sunshine every day.
If things start going badly in Iraq, but not REALLY REALLY REALLY badly (and it won't get THAT bad,) Bush will win because the American people will trust the only candidate who they think will "see the job through," and that's Bush. If things keep getting better and better in Iraq, Bush will win because America won't go with a "Bush-Wannabe" when they can have the real thing.
President Bush has gone out and created history, not just reacted to it. He has taken huge risks, world altering risks, and so far it looks like, to a great extent, things are going to roll his way. Come 2005, what could a re-elected President Bush do for an encore? Of course it should be obvious.
Cuba. Don't be surprised to see American soldiers in Havana by 2007. Sooner if Fidel Castro happens to die.
