Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (214605)	1/15/2003 9:54:04 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 436258

War Diary: Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2003 Jan 15, 2003 Pressure on the United States increased on Tuesday, Jan. 14. The source of the pressure was domestic rather than international: A Gallup poll appeared in which the president’s overall approval rating slipped 5 points in one week, from 63 percent to 58 percent -- well below the extraordinary 90 percent rating he received right after the Sept. 11 attacks. A 58 percent approval rating is still strong, but a 5 percent drop in one week has to frighten President George W. Bush and his political managers. It doesn’t require a political genius to see that Bush soon could be in negative territory. Bush’s problem is that he brought the country psychologically to the brink of war before he was ready to launch the war. During that time -- since around Thanksgiving -- the buildup has been continuing. However, in order to placate potential allies, the president has switched his tone to something that sounds more conciliatory than it is. That is confusing but not, by itself, that damaging. However, the Bush administration has been hit simultaneously by two other crises, Venezuela and now, much more striking, North Korea. The Venezuelan crisis is noticed because of the effect it is having on oil. The North Korean crisis is noticed because it appears to be identical to the Iraqi crisis, at least in the way the president has framed that situation. In the Venezuelan crisis, the United States appears to have no clear policy; in the North Korean crisis, Washington seems to be willing to appease a country that says it is building nuclear weapons. Now, there are good reasons for each of these policies. The Bush administration’s problem is that excessive subtlety in foreign policy is tough when one is preparing the nation for war. The majority of the public is prepared to support the war -- not necessarily because they think it is a good idea, but because the president has said it is a good idea. It is less an endorsement of war than the inherent tendency of the American public to support a president who is acting decisively in a major crisis. Sept. 11 generated support for the president because crises always increase support for presidents, particularly when they appear to be acting decisively and taking control of the situation. However, Bush is starting to look indecisive and not fully in control. Continual statements that no decision has been made on the war are starting to sink in. The public is shifting from an acceptance of war and a rallying to the colors to wondering whether the war is actually going to happen. That makes for good diplomacy, but it makes for bad politics in the United States. When you pile on the other crises, the president appears to be losing his edge. The White House seemed to come to the same conclusion Tuesday. Bush said he is "sick and tired of games and deception," adding that "I haven’t seen any evidence that he (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has disarmed. Time is running out for Saddam Hussein. He must disarm." In a similar vein, British leaders, who have been experiencing the same slippage in political support for the last couple of weeks, announced through Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that Britain reserved the right to attack Iraq with or without U.N. approval. The political consensus in the United States that has backed Bush’s Iraq policy is clearly being weakened by what is perceived as an uncertainty in the White House about the war. Domestic political sentiment has always been a factor in U.S. war-making. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt both fought their wars with one eye on public opinion; it is no surprise that Bush is going to have to do that too. Two things follow from this. First, the desire to placate allies now will take a back seat to the need to maintain Bush’s domestic political base. That means there will be more bellicosity and less conciliation in the U.S. position. Second, and more important, it means that the onset of war cannot be put off indefinitely. It is not only militarily difficult to bring the troops into the theater and then hold, but it is now becoming politically difficult to do so as well. Particularly because he has to put off other decisive actions in crisis spots like Venezuela and North Korea, Bush cannot put off this war for another 90 days. It is tough to launch a war when your political base has dissolved. It is not fair to say that Bush is trapped, since war is what he wants. However, he is trapped in the tactical sense that the things he would like to say publicly in order to cajole his allies are at odds with the things he needs to say in order to hold his political base. Since Bush can go to war without the allies but not without his political base, there is no question which direction he will go. Tuesday’s poll would indicate both that the tone from the White House and Downing Street is about to get more strident, and that the fuse on this war will not be permitted to get much longer. Bush is now under political pressure to get the war over with, and Bush is sensitive to political pressure.