Analysis: Bush Walks a Tightrope on Iraq

P H I L A D E L P H I A, Aug. 2, 2000 -- George W. Bush is getting a nice bounce in his presidential campaign this week, thanks to a nearly conflict-free Republican National Convention here in Philadelphia.

But 10 years ago today, George Bush the elder was about to get the mother of all bounces in a presidential campaign — a successful war, one in which American voters rallied around the commander in chief as he stared down the evil Iraqi President Saddam Hussein — and won.

But did he?

A decade later, with Saddam still firmly in control and the United States unable to halt his reported development of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush campaign is having to walk a tightrope on the Iraq issue.

George W. Bush and the Republican Party want to capitalize on the strong sentiments still evoked a decade later by the mere mention of the words “Desert Storm.”

But the son can’t play in to Gulf War patriotism without, at some point, having to explain to voters why Saddam remains in power. This, despite a major war launched by his father, and aided and abetted by his father’s generals and advisers — generals and advisers now playing prominent roles in the 2000 GOP presidential campaign.

Featured prominently at the podium on the first two nights of the convention were two of the most prominent Desert Storm generals: Colin Powell on Monday night and a special appearance by “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopfvia satellite from a battleship, surrounded by men and women in uniform.

Even more significant is the selection of former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, one of the key players in deciding when Desert Storm would begin — and when it would end.

Media Addresses the Issue

Several critics have said the war ended too soon, without the destruction of the Saddam regime. The Denver Post raised this issue, noting in an editorial: “Cheney’s chief accomplishment was his role in winning the Persian Gulf war. But the victory was incomplete. Saddam Hussein remains in power.”

The editorial board of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, La., weighed in on the issue as well, noting Cheney’s emergence and Powell’s prominence on the national Republican stage.

Ticking off all the ways Saddam continues to pose a menace to the world stage, The Advocate editors warned that the next president, whether it’s Bush or Democrat Al Gore, certainly will have to address the continuing problem of Saddam. “We wish him luck,” the editorial said, “he’ll need it.”

In his autobiography An American Journey, Powell at times becomes defensive on the Saddam issue. “It is naïve to think that if Saddam had fallen, he would necessarily have been replaced by a Jeffersonian in some sort of desert democracy where people read The Federalist Papers along with the Koran. Quite possibly, we would have wound up with Saddam by another name.”

Campaign Skirts the Issue

It is worth noting that the parade of speakers at the Republican convention designed to highlight Bush’s commitment to a strong military and foreign policy — including Powell, Schwarzkopf, former Vietnam POW Sen. John McCain and Bush’s senior foreign policy adviser Condoleezza Rice — have avoided mentioning the name Saddam Hussein.

Schwarzkopf’s speech was a rousing tribute to the fighting forces of Desert Storm, but entirely ignored the lingering question of what to do about the Iraqi dictator, who was elevated by politicians and, to some degree, the media, to an almost mythical, evil status during the Gulf War.

In her speech last night, Rice did not address Iraq at all but did paint a picture of how Bush views the armed forces. “He believes that America has a special responsibility to keep the peace — that the fair cause of freedom depends on our strength and purpose,” she said. “He recognizes that the magnificent men and women of America’s armed forces are not a global police force. They are not the world’s 911. They are the strongest shield and surest sword in the maintenance of peace. If the time ever comes to use military force, President George W. Bush will do so to win — because for him, victory is not a dirty word.”

Lofty words, but no mention here about Saddam.

The Gore campaign is hardly likely to create a fuss about Saddam either. After all, the past eight years under the Clinton-Gore administration have seen a string of embarrassing failures on the Iraqi front.

Ten years after the Gulf War, Hussein is playing the same role he has on many other stages — a major problem without any immediate answers. But it is safe to say American voters may want answers on the Iraqi issue in the coming months. And that is a challenge posed to Republican and Democratic candidates.