Winning the war?

[Gustaf]

This might seem a little unwarranted, but what if the war ends? Let's say things settle down in Iraq and bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda pretty much ceases to exist. I know what you are all thinking. Bush got it bagged. I wouldn't be so sure. I think GWB is running a lot on leading the country during a time of crisis. What if no threat were to be percieved? If foreign policy and national security were removed as issues, and some time passes between the decisive victories, like the capture of Saddam, and the election it could actually help the Democrats. Any comments?

[Wakie]

This might seem a little unwarranted, but what if the war ends? Let's say things settle down in Iraq and bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda pretty much ceases to exist. I know what you are all thinking. Bush got it bagged. I wouldn't be so sure. I think GWB is running a lot on leading the country during a time of crisis. What if no threat were to be percieved? If foreign policy and national security were removed as issues, and some time passes between the decisive victories, like the capture of Saddam, and the election it could actually help the Democrats. Any comments?

Herein lies the problem, there is no clear "end" to this war.  Even if Bin Laden and all the rest of Al Qaeda senior leadership is captured this "war" will continue.

[Gustaf]

This might seem a little unwarranted, but what if the war ends? Let's say things settle down in Iraq and bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda pretty much ceases to exist. I know what you are all thinking. Bush got it bagged. I wouldn't be so sure. I think GWB is running a lot on leading the country during a time of crisis. What if no threat were to be percieved? If foreign policy and national security were removed as issues, and some time passes between the decisive victories, like the capture of Saddam, and the election it could actually help the Democrats. Any comments?

Herein lies the problem, there is no clear "end" to this war.  Even if Bin Laden and all the rest of Al Qaeda senior leadership is captured this "war" will continue.

Yeah, I know, but let's say it is pretty much over. There will be signs of it if it comes to an end (like taking home troops, a stop to panic warnings about terrorist attacks, perhaps an end to extreme measures like the guys on Cuba, etc)

[jravnsbo]

Bush will win if all that happens.  I think as long as he is seen to be strong on defense and fighting terrorism or at least better than the Dem alternative.

Plus you saw the spike for catching Saddam, catching OBL would be twice that much.

[jravnsbo]

Putin: Russia Set to Write Off Iraq Debt    

MOSCOW - Russia is ready to write off more than half of the $8 billion that Baghdad owes Moscow, its largest creditor, President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) told a visiting Iraqi delegation on Monday.

At a Kremlin meeting, Putin also told the delegation that Russian companies are ready to invest up to $4 billion in Iraq (news - web sites) as Russia looked to revive oil and other contracts ruptured or left unimplemented in the last years of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime.


"We have always developed ties with your nation," Putin said. "We strongly hope that Russia will have good relations with the new leadership of Iraq."


Samir Shaker Mahmoud, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said Putin told the delegation that Russia was ready to write off 65 percent of Iraq's debt.


The debt is part of the approximately $41 billion owed by Iraq to the so-called Paris Club group of creditor nations; Iraq's overall debt is about $120 million.


"Sometime in 2004 the Paris Club will meet and Iraq will be discussed. At that point, every member will have its position clear" on how much of the debt to write off, Mahmoud said.


Last week, Putin had told James A. Baker III, the U.S. envoy on Iraqi debt, that Moscow was prepared to begin negotiations on debt forgiveness but only "taking into account the economic interests of Russia and Russian companies in Iraq."


Another council member, Jalal Talabani, told a news conference that Putin held out the prospect of "further help and support if there are Russian contracts." He did not specify what that help might be.


The ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime by the U.S.-led military invasion brought an end to the U.N.-sanctioned oil-for-food program, which had been a bonanza for Russian companies. Under the program, Russian companies got preferential terms for contracts to supply products ranging from rice to refinery equipment and received Iraqi oil, which was then resold to others.


Russia's eagerness to resume business in Iraq is whetted by its being shut out of contracts for Iraqi reconstruction. The United States decided to bar countries that opposed the war from taking part in the reconstruction efforts, with a price tag of more than $18 billion.


Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, who headed the delegation and is the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, said the Iraqis are interested in developing relations with Russia, and added that Russian companies could "compete successfully" on the Iraqi market.


Russia's Energy Minister Igor Yusufov told reporters after the Kremlin talks that the Iraqi delegation had proposed "resuming talks between experts on Russian contracts" and officials from both sides will soon sit down for talks.


Russia is also concerned about the status of a 1997 contract under which a consortium of several Russian companies was to develop Iraq's West Qurna-2 oil field. That project never got under way because of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.


Al-Hakim met Monday with the head of Russian oil company Lukoil, the major partner in the $6 billion project, and told the news conference later that "in principle we're not opposed" to activating the contract.


Saddam had severed the West Qurna agreement last year, saying Lukoil had not fulfilled the terms of the contract.

[Demrepdan]

Since the "War" will never really be over....and since Bush and the Republicans "know" what they are doing, then why don't we just vote Republican for the rest of eternity? Since the War on Terrorism will never end. (Sarcasm)

[jravnsbo]

from the washington times today...

Iraq and al Qaeda
    Many prominent Democrats — including, with the exception Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut , all of the party's presidential hopefuls — continue to insist that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda terrorist group. But that was not the view of the Clinton administration, Stephen F. Hayes writes in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard.
    In fact, when al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, President Clinton responded by launching missiles to destroy the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan believed to be producing deadly nerve gas, Mr. Hayes noted.
    Osama bin Laden, who lived in Sudan between 1992 and 1996, was known to have close financial ties to the Sudanese Military Industrial Corp. — the manager of the plant lived in a villa owned by bin Laden — and U.S. intelligence also intercepted a phone call between Iraqi scientists and the plant's manager.
    "But there is bound to be more discussion of al Shifa and Iraq-al Qaeda connections in the coming weeks," Mr. Hayes said. "The Senate Intelligence Committee is nearing completion of its review of prewar intelligence. And although there is still no CIA team assigned to look at the links between Iraq and al Qaeda, investigators looking at documents from the fallen regime continue to uncover new information about those connections on a regular basis."
    Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who sits on the Intelligence committee, told the Weekly Standard that "the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation."
    "Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide."

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

This might seem a little unwarranted, but what if the war ends? Let's say things settle down in Iraq and bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda pretty much ceases to exist. I know what you are all thinking. Bush got it bagged. I wouldn't be so sure. I think GWB is running a lot on leading the country during a time of crisis. What if no threat were to be percieved? If foreign policy and national security were removed as issues, and some time passes between the decisive victories, like the capture of Saddam, and the election it could actually help the Democrats. Any comments?

In order for your scenario to work under any circumstances, the Road to the White House [as C-SPAN puts it]  would have to have just started, and not be so far along in the year.

[M]

Since the early '80s, the beating heart of modern terrorism has been in Tehran, or rather Qom. Until there is a regime change their- one way or another- terrorism will not be defeated. Note the following victories in the war on terror are significant:

Toppling the Taliban
Preventing Al Qaeda from trasferring en masse to Somalia
Victory over Hussein
Defection of Sudan and Yemen (in 2001) to anti-terror coalition, and now apparently Libya as well
Capture of Saddam
Stepping up activities in Afghan interior
Weakening of terrorists in Colombia and Phillipines

On the other hand, note the following failures:

Failure to weaken/isolate Arafat
Failure to capture OBL and Al-Zawahri, yet
Failure to hurt Hezbollah's operational and training base in the Beqaa Valley, Lebanon
Failure to stop Syria from sponsoring terror by peaceful means
Failure to halt Iranian Nuke program (this one really creeps me out)
Failure to either create regime change in Korea, eliminate their WMD, or at least cut them off from suppliying MidEast rogues like Iran
Failure to stop Iran from gaining effective control of Al Qaeda and PLO activities (combine this with Hezbollah, and they have a virtual monopoly on powerful terror groups)
Failure to dissuade Saudus from quietly supporting terror

So the war is not over. The tide will most likely turn when Iran is overthrown. But the war will not end till the whole MidEast is free.

[jravnsbo]

Iran and syria are definately harborers of terrorists.  It looks more and more like Iran is helping the terrorists.

Come on people within, need a revolution!

[Gustaf]

Since the "War" will never really be over....and since Bush and the Republicans "know" what they are doing, then why don't we just vote Republican for the rest of eternity? Since the War on Terrorism will never end. (Sarcasm)

I think Demrepdan comes closer to my point. As long as the war is clearly going on Bush has a major advantage since he is leading the nation in a time of crisis, and most dem nominees have little trustworthyness on these issues. If things get worse, say another terrorist attack, the call would most likely be for more Bush-styled politics. If the opponent is then Howard Dean, i don't think he would benefit. If it was Wesley Clark, then maybe. Still, do you wanna kick out an incumbent who has done a fairly good job in the middle of a crisis? I don't think so. But there is no such thing as gratitude in politics. Just ask Winston Churchill.

[Gustaf]

This might seem a little unwarranted, but what if the war ends? Let's say things settle down in Iraq and bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda pretty much ceases to exist. I know what you are all thinking. Bush got it bagged. I wouldn't be so sure. I think GWB is running a lot on leading the country during a time of crisis. What if no threat were to be percieved? If foreign policy and national security were removed as issues, and some time passes between the decisive victories, like the capture of Saddam, and the election it could actually help the Democrats. Any comments?

In order for your scenario to work under any circumstances, the Road to the White House [as C-SPAN puts it]  would have to have just started, and not be so far along in the year.

Yeah, I know.

[Gustaf]

Maybe I should clarify one thing. I am not saying the war will end any time soon. I am just saying that it might, and asking what will then happen.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bush will win if all that happens.  I think as long as he is seen to be strong on defense and fighting terrorism or at least better than the Dem alternative.

Plus you saw the spike for catching Saddam, catching OBL would be twice that much.

Do you think that Saddam's Capture was Orchestrated by Karl Rove? I have my suspicions.

[Wakie]

I just don't think that too many of us see an end to this "war" any time in the foreseeable future.

But let's go out on a lark and say that it does.  If that happens then Bush gets a bubble of popularity.  But whether or not he sustains that depends on what happens with the economy.

Right now we are being told that the economy is improving.  However I still see people hurting.  It takes more than 2 months to prove that 3 bad year are over.

So, ultimately, if you removed te "war" then most Americans would use the Reagan yardstick, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago".  For the majority of the nation's finances the answer is no.  Whether or not that is Bush's fault is irrelevant.  He's the guy who is there now so he will get the blame or credit for anything that happens today.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I just don't think that too many of us see an end to this "war" any time in the foreseeable future.

But let's go out on a lark and say that it does.  If that happens then Bush gets a bubble of popularity.  But whether or not he sustains that depends on what happens with the economy.

Right now we are being told that the economy is improving.  However I still see people hurting.  It takes more than 2 months to prove that 3 bad year are over.

So, ultimately, if you removed te "war" then most Americans would use the Reagan yardstick, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago".  For the majority of the nation's finances the answer is no.  Whether or not that is Bush's fault is irrelevant.  He's the guy who is there now so he will get the blame or credit for anything that happens today.

well said. It does take more than a two month pick up to cure the wows of a troubling economy. Yes, who used to say: "The Buck Stops Here?" Wasn't that President Truman?

[Gustaf]

I just don't think that too many of us see an end to this "war" any time in the foreseeable future.

But let's go out on a lark and say that it does.  If that happens then Bush gets a bubble of popularity.  But whether or not he sustains that depends on what happens with the economy.

Right now we are being told that the economy is improving.  However I still see people hurting.  It takes more than 2 months to prove that 3 bad year are over.

So, ultimately, if you removed te "war" then most Americans would use the Reagan yardstick, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago".  For the majority of the nation's finances the answer is no.  Whether or not that is Bush's fault is irrelevant.  He's the guy who is there now so he will get the blame or credit for anything that happens today.

well said. It does take more than a two month pick up to cure the wows of a troubling economy. Yes, who used to say: "The Buck Stops Here?" Wasn't that President Truman?

I think a lot of people are assuming that Bush will get the credit for a victory, and he might. But you don't get thanked for winning a war. Look at Churchill. He didn't just win any war, he won WWII, and he was one of the more popular PMs in British history. In the election in 1945 (!) he got beaten, and not by a slim margin.

[WONK]

Orchestrated by Karl Rove....hmmmm....I find it laughable that every foreign policy success by this administration is explained away by lefties in a mocking fashion by immediate cries of "conspiracy" and "secrecy".  Yet, these theories are NEVER followed by facts, evidence, and are never eventually proven.  However, you often here them repeated, or just "put out on the table" (ala Dr. Dean).  Unfortunately, this administration is not quite as adept at "ochestration" as past administrations.  I have yet to see Bush strolling the beaches of Normandy looking tortuously pensive, then finding a small pile of rocks on the beach and making a cross out of them (all in front of the cameras, of course).

Then comes your predictions of the effect an ended or ongoing war will have in 2004.  The one scenario not mentioned is that the American people will be thankful to the administration for having the fortitude to deal with this problem (fighting the terrorists AND the left), and sweep Bush to re-election, whether this war is over or not.

[jravnsbo]

another article notice what quadafi said:

I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid," Mr. Gadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, according to a Berlusconi spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's Telegraph of London.

--Bush used forced when he had to and showed the world he was willing to use it.  Now it pressured Libya to turn in its weapons, without force but with the threat of it.  

Dean will not have the reputation for being tough int he world and be willing to use force, such as vs North Korea.

Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction is making it harder for Democrats such as Howard Dean to disparage President Bush's war against Iraq, which prompted Libya's move.
    Mr. Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been uncharacteristically silent about Mr. Bush's bombshell announcement on Friday that Libya has agreed unconditionally to relinquish its chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs.
    Although Mr. Bush pointed out that the disarmament offer coincided with the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March, a Dean spokesman yesterday downplayed any causal relationship.
    "Look, the agreement with the Libyans is good news and an important step forward in the effort to combat weapons of mass destruction," conceded Dean spokesman Jay Carson.
    "But the agreement is the result of years of diplomacy and sanctions, conducted in concert with the international community, which Governor Dean believes is the most effective means of pursuing that goal," he added.
    Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi made it clear that his decision to disarm was prompted by Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    "I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid," Mr. Gadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, according to a Berlusconi spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's Telegraph of London.
    "I haven't seen that quote," Mr. Carson said. "It's tough for me to respond to something I haven't seen."
    Mr. Dean has staked his candidacy on the notion that it was wrong to wage war against Iraq, even though Operation Iraqi Freedom was supported by 70 percent of the American public. Support remains nearly that high in the wake of postwar developments, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein and Libya's decision to disarm.
    Although U.S. forces have not found Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — which the president cited as one of the main reasons for deposing Saddam — the decision by Libya to surrender its weapons complicates Mr. Dean's recent assertions that America is no safer since Saddam's capture or even since September 11.
    "You have Howard Dean saying that our nation and our world are not safer with Saddam Hussein in custody," said Christine Iverson, press secretary for the Republican National Committee. "You have [Senator] Joe Lieberman, who says that our nation and our world are safer.
    "I mean, those are radically divergent views on a very central foreign-policy question," she added. "The Democrats continue to undermine their own position by failing to agree on even the most basic foreign-policy questions."
    Libya's disarmament also appears to undermine statements by other Democratic hopefuls, including Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Shortly after Saddam was captured last week, Mr. Edwards criticized the president's policy on weapons of mass destruction.
    "This administration's approach to protecting America from weapons of mass destruction can be summed up simply: Wait until our enemies gather strength, and then use force to stop them," Mr. Edwards said. "We should be exercising every option we have to stop the spread of deadly weapons before war becomes our only option."
    Mr. Bush said the Libya agreement was made possible by nine months of "quiet diplomacy," which prompted criticism from Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.
    "Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush administration's overall foreign policy," Mr. Kerry said. "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military pre-emption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy.
    "If the president can put aside his go-it-alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Gadhafi, why are the ideologues in this administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear-weapons programs?" he added. "Why not rally the United Nations and NATO to forge a new cooperative effort to combat proliferation around the globe?"
    Other Democrats also treated Libya's disarmament as an opportunity to criticize the president.
    "Libya's certainly good news, but we've got a long way to go before we can feel we've really made the American people safe in a time of terrorism," Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said on "Fox News Sunday." "There are failures that are still bedeviling us on a number of other fronts.
    "We've got North Korea apparently going ahead and making nuclear weapons," he added. "And we still don't have the international help in Iraq that we should have gotten a long time ago."

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

It's a good article you've shared. I believe the whole world is better off without Saddam. However, not even the Democrats have muttered a thing about the real culprits of 9-11, Saudi Arabia. What are we afraid of, what do they have on us? Why don't we invade Saudi Arabia and infiltrate the terrorist cells within that country and destroy them. Let's go after the culprits of September 11, 2001.
LET'S ROLL!

[jravnsbo]

thanks, always looking for good articles.

Well we are still taking it to the terorists in afghanistan, contrary to what some would have us believe.  The problem there is terrain and borders which are harder to patrol and with relations over there even tough for the gov'ts it is tough to work.

As for Saudi, we have pulled our military out of there.  A good start on both sides.  

Next, the government there is US friendly they just have tons of terrorists within and the balance of power for the government is shakey.  If the terrorists are threatened then the government might fall to a more Shiite anti-US gov't.  So tough deal with them, we either go after terorists and gov't falls or don't and terrorists have a safe haven.

Double edged sword.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

thanks, always looking for good articles.

Well we are still taking it to the terorists in afghanistan, contrary to what some would have us believe.  The problem there is terrain and borders which are harder to patrol and with relations over there even tough for the gov'ts it is tough to work.

As for Saudi, we have pulled our military out of there.  A good start on both sides.  

Next, the government there is US friendly they just have tons of terrorists within and the balance of power for the government is shakey.  If the terrorists are threatened then the government might fall to a more Shiite anti-US gov't.  So tough deal with them, we either go after terorists and gov't falls or don't and terrorists have a safe haven.

Double edged sword.

Ah, but couldn't the United States go into Saudi Arabia and put the ruling family in protective custody and/or bring them back to the U.S., or another U.S. friendly country, then go in and place another provisional government in power, headed by another American or Ally, and take care of business,  once it's over and we've cleaned up, we can reinstall the ruling family?

[jravnsbo]

a lot easier said than done for one thing.  Plus they are a monarchy and we aren't exactly in the job of promoting monarchies.  

dicey for sure and Iraq is enough for now.  Plus we got Libya to come in line, along with Afghanistan.  It is a gradual process.  Imagine we have freed 2 countries from bondage in 3 years, that is amazing! in such a short time period.

Plus as I said Libya is trying to become more moderate.  Making progress.

I see Iran and Syria as worse than Saudi arabia.  Not perfect but at least their gov't is ok with us, better than we can say about the other 2.  Iran acknowledges it has members of Al quada in its borders.

[Gustaf]

thanks, always looking for good articles.

Well we are still taking it to the terorists in afghanistan, contrary to what some would have us believe.  The problem there is terrain and borders which are harder to patrol and with relations over there even tough for the gov'ts it is tough to work.

As for Saudi, we have pulled our military out of there.  A good start on both sides.  

Next, the government there is US friendly they just have tons of terrorists within and the balance of power for the government is shakey.  If the terrorists are threatened then the government might fall to a more Shiite anti-US gov't.  So tough deal with them, we either go after terorists and gov't falls or don't and terrorists have a safe haven.

Double edged sword.

The Saudi government are gonna fall anyway. They are one of the least popular governments in the world and has been for a long time. They keep power due to their promotion of islamic fanaticism and they wont last in the long run.

[jravnsbo]

Well US will deal with that problem when it comes.