AFTER WAR...MORE WAR:

After War, New Problems For Bush (Charlie Cook, March 18, 2003, NationalJournal.com)

The outbreak of a war with Iraq now seems to be a matter of days -- or even hours. Talk of war and diplomatic maneuvering has dominated the political and policy landscape for months. Win, lose or draw, the conclusion of a war with Iraq means President Bush will face many formidable policy challenges that are no less daunting than Iraq and easily could significantly complicate his re-election efforts.

Bush will likely find himself playing defense on a wide range of very difficult issues. [...]

The year before a presidential election is usually a time for fine-tuning the president's positioning on policy matters and for teeing up issues that will maximize his chances of getting re-elected. Instead, Bush will likely find himself playing defense on a wide range of very difficult issues, with little maneuverability to select and promote other issues that would maximize his attractiveness to various elements of the electorate.

Whether one agrees with Bush's handling of Iraq, it is hard to argue with the premise that America's relations with major Western and Asian nations are in a shambles. At no point since the end of World War II have relations between the United States and the governments of historic allies and adversaries alike been so strained. And relations are even worse with the general populations of those respective countries. Whether these governments and their peoples were "right" or "wrong" in their opposition or hesitancy to war, the United States will find dealing with them in the post-war era significantly more difficult than at any time in memory. Putting together coalitions for the foreseeable future will be particularly problematic given the ill will that has been created over the last year.

In terms of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, relations with the vast majority of peaceful adherents to the Islamic faith are awful, while we have further antagonized the distinct minority of radicals to the point that future terrorism is even more likely than it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001. [...]

The real political consequences of policy miscalculations have been masked to a certain extent by the halo effect of the terrorist attacks and the focus on foreign policy. Very real symptoms regarding the president's political health, the condition of his agenda and his ability to advance his agenda have gone unrecognized or with little note. Once the war is over, the problems that remain will be just as serious but more evident. Even a boost in Bush's approval numbers after an exceedingly short and successful war could be short-lived given the nation's poor economy and the other serious problems that seem to have the president surrounded.

Setting aside the incredibly moronic statement that terrorism is more likely now than it was on September 10th, 2001--when it was, of course, impending--the rest of this is pretty much conventional wisdom on the Left because, as noted below, they mostly misapprehend this president and his policy of a war on terror. They'd like to think that once we have bin Laden and Saddam it's all over and we can get back to the business that matters to them--like raising the minimum wage or whatever (is there a single credible Democratic proposal on any issue?).

Instead, the administration is likely to turn to North Korea--a regime that the President, for excellent cause, finds just as morally repugnant as Saddam's--and to narcoterrorists in Colombia and to Syria's Ba'athists and to Palestine's Hamas and Iran's Hezbollah, etc., etc., etc.... The war on terror is against both terrorists who use violence on us and our allies and against the regimes that use terror to subjugate their own populations--plenty of both remain. Defeating al Qaeda and Saddam is a start to that war, not its end. And since the conduct of foreign policy is left entirely to the president's discretion, he'll largely determine what we're talking about for the next year and a half (or five and a half), not Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, and the lilliputian presidential contenders.

If the economy doesn't begin to improve, Mr. Bush is certainly in for tough times, but the toughest times ahead may well be for Democrats, who will likely oppose the administration at each step in the war on terrorand who, having essentially sought to protect Saddam will now find themselves propping up Kim Jong-il and Muamar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad and a host of other tyrants, a position they'll share with the governments of France, Russia, and China. When the topic is national security the Democrats nearly always look bad and that'll be the topic for some time to come.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 18, 2003 1:52 PM