The Labor Day before a presidential election year is traditionally the kickoff date for the two parties' campaigns. It is safe to assume that the Democrats would be dissatisfied with George W. Bush at this point, no matter how unblemished his record might be. What is new and different is that they really think they have come up with an issue that can hurt him – and it is in the field of foreign rather than domestic affairs.
Conventional wisdom has it that Americans vote on the pocketbook issues. And so they may in 2004. Up until now, the Democrats have assumed that their chances of winning would probably depend on the state of the economy as Election Day approaches. So they have pointed with dismay to the sluggish employment statistics, and done their best to disregard the clear signs that the economy is at last moving, shakily but steadily, out of its slump. The trouble (from the Democrats' standpoint) is that the economy, even including employment, will probably be a good deal healthier a year from now.
Meanwhile, foreign affairs have been Bush's strong suit. Faced with Sept. 11, which amounted to a terrorist declaration of war against the United States, he moved swiftly to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaida and provided it with training grounds. Simultaneously, he launched economic and military attacks against terrorist bases in half a dozen countries around the world.
And then, after asking for U.N. support and being rejected, he led a "coalition of the willing" in an invasion of Iraq, a hotbed of fanatical Muslim hatred (for the United States and our principles of freedom) located in the very heart of the Middle East. In less than three weeks, Saddam Hussein had been toppled, with incredibly low casualties among American troops and Iraqi civilians.
All this met with the enthusiastic approval of the American people, and Bush's popularity soared accordingly. There seemed nothing for the Democrats to do but applaud his performance and try to focus public attention on the anemic economy.
But the five months since the end of major combat operations in Iraq – meaning action by large, coordinated military units – have been much less kind to Bush. The Iraqi people, while glad to be rid of Saddam (if indeed they are rid of him), shared the widespread Muslim distaste for many aspects of American culture, and viewed the arrival of American troops as a distinctly mixed blessing.
The economic infrastructure of the country, which had never been very healthy under Saddam anyway, was extensively demolished by his forces before they faded away. And Saddam thoughtfully added to the chaos by releasing 100,000 common criminals from his prisons to resume their unhealthy activities.
Finally, various fanatical holdovers from the old regime, augmented by like-minded terrorists from nearby Arab countries, embarked on a program of picking off coalition soldiers – mostly American – at the rate of one or two a day. The military impact was insignificant, but the psychological effect was far from negligible.
So the Democrats are, unexpectedly, having a field day at Bush's expense. He may have won the war, but he's losing the peace! Moreover, when he sought U.N. approval for the nascent Iraqi regime that is coming into being in Baghdad – a necessary precondition for economic and military aid from many countries – he was laughed at for "having to go, hat in hand," to the international organization he had scorned a year ago.
Bush can afford a little laughter at his expense. If, a year from now, Iraq is well on its way to becoming a prosperous and democratic society, and America and its allies have pacified the country and reduced the need for American forces there, the last laugh will be his – and Election Day will be just two months away.