Today’s commentary: Will Bush survive Iraq?

By Boris Kagarlitsky

ZNet Commentary

With American elections approaching, the whole world is
waiting. Americans are voting, but every other country
knows that its future in one or another way will depend
on the outcome of this vote. Because G.W. Bush isn’t a
problem for Americans, it is a disaster for most of the
world.

It is commonly held in Europe that the ever-worsening
situation in Iraq is undermining George W. Bush’s
chances of re-election. Indeed, there’s no denying that
each new report from Iraq is a blow to Bush’s
reputation: No WMD have been found; opposition to U.S.
forces is growing; the death toll is rising;
stabilization of the country is a long way off; and all
the promises and forecasts of the U.S. administration
have proven untrue or incorrect.

The doomsayers’ gloomiest predictions of a "new
Vietnam" in Iraq are coming true. Critics of U.S.
muscle-flexing, shamed into silence last spring, are
once more taking heart. And the real war is just
getting started. Washington’s main problem has nothing
to do with the military, however. When leaders set an
unattainable political goal, even the best troops and
the most advanced hardware are powerless.

The Iraqi resistance is now strong and effective
because it has been prepared and provoked by the
Americans themselves. Given that the United States will
not alter its policy in the region, this resistance
will continue to spread. The fall of Saddam Hussein’s
regime liberated the Iraqis and made spontaneous self-
organization possible.

Dissolution of the former army and reorganization of
the police created a power vacuum on the ground that
was crucial to the formation of armed units by the
Iraqi people themselves. As the people became
increasingly certain that the Hussein regime was gone
for good, they turned their attention to fighting
against U.S. troops. The only thing U.S. commanders
have done right in this war was allowing Hussein to
flee Baghdad last spring.

But when George W. Bush’s poll numbers started to sag,
he took the fateful step of ordering Hussein to be
taken into custody. By closing one chapter in the
history of modern Iraq, the United States opened
another. With the Baath Party regime disposed of, the
people turned against the U.S. occupying force.

The U.S. attempt to create a puppet administration has
had even more dire consequences for its position in
Iraq. Washington insists that the insurgents are trying
to prevent the transfer of power to an Iraqi
government. This is true. But the White House is
planning to hand over power to Iraqis of its own
choosing — unelected leaders who wield no influence
within the country. The creation of an Iraqi
administration has not been linked to the withdrawal of
U.S. troops or even to a change in their status.

The process of forming an "Iraqi" government, more than
anything else, has revealed Bush’s statements about
bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East to be
empty rhetoric. Most Iraqis now clearly see that an
occupying army is creating a new government as a
prerequisite to a prolonged stay in the country, not to
withdrawal. The Iraqis have been denied their right to
democracy.

When the goal is to restore independence, power is
handed over only after free elections and only to a
legitimate government that enjoys the support of the
majority. The U.S. refusal to do so has made abundantly
clear that it intends to turn Iraq into a protectorate.
In other words, it is trying to colonize Iraq.

Bush had no choice in the matter. Having occupied a
foreign country, he is obliged to talk about freedom,
all the while doing everything possible to prevent
local residents from exercising their democratic rights
against the occupying force. The longer the occupation
continues, the more likely it becomes that enemies of
the United States will set the tone in a fairly elected
Iraqi parliament.

The White House faces an insoluble dilemma: It cannot
leave Iraq and it cannot stay. In chess this quandary
is called "zugzwang," when it is your turn to move, but
all possible moves will weaken your position. U.S.
interests would be best served by admitting defeat and
getting out now. For Bush and his clan this would be
political suicide, however, and they don’t seem like
the kind of people who are willing to sacrifice their
own ambitions for the common good.

Bush will drag out the war, increasing U.S. troop
strength in Iraq. This will lead to even greater loss
of life on both sides, to animosity and the growth of
Muslim radicalism. If Bush wins a second term in
November, he will spend the next four years helplessly
trying to cope with problems he has created, and in the
end his attempts will lead to catastrophe. But should
the Democrat John Kerry prevail, he will face a no-win
situation. If he sticks to Bush’s policy in Iraq, he
will rouse the ire of many of his core supporters. If
he decides to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, he will be
blamed for defeat.

Whatever happens, the outcome will have serious
domestic political consequences for the United States.
As for Iraq, a U.S. withdrawal will quite possibly
usher in a period of chaos. This is not an argument in
favor of prolonging the occupation, however. The United
States must withdraw in any case. The longer the war
lasts, the harder it will be for everyone involved to
deal with its consequences.

However, will all this help the Democrats in their
fight for the White House? When discussing Bush’s
falling approval ratings, European commentators tend to
ignore the fact that recent events in Iraq also
highlight the failure of the Democrats’ electoral
strategy.

John Kerry’s victory over Howard Dean in the primaries
was a triumph for the conservative party machine, which
managed to stamp out a revolt by the party grass-roots
activists. The "rebels" tried to base their campaign on
antiwar and anti-authoritarian slogans, which for the
party mainstream was too risky. Kerry won out as a
moderate candidate, who, according to the received
wisdom, should be able to consolidate a broad section
of the population around himself. Those on the left of
the party will have little choice but to support him on
the basis that anyone is better than Bush.

Party strategists have worked on the assumption that as
fall approaches the Iraq question will fade into the
background and problems in the U.S. economy will become
the main issue on which the campaign is fought. Debates
between U.S. politicians on economic problems can
create a strange impression on foreign observers. The
opposition candidate paints a colorful picture of
economic crisis in the country, blaming it on the
incumbent president, but then doesn’t offer anything
radically different by way of economic policies.

Nevertheless, this type of campaign has already led the
Democrats to victory over Republicans on two occasions:
Following the same script, Jimmy Carter got the better
of Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton beat George Bush
senior. The party machine is ready to follow the same
scenario a third time — in the duel between Kerry and
Bush junior.

Alas, it is already apparent that everything may happen
in reverse this time. The economy has not recovered
greatly, but it isn’t so bad as to relegate all other
issues to the back burner. On the contrary, the war in
Iraq is the hot topic in America at the moment, and it
is on this issue that Kerry’s position is weakest.

He is not opposed to the war, is not in favor of
withdrawing U.S. forces and his position does not
differ significantly from Bush’s. As a result he cannot
mount a powerful attack on the president. His speeches
on this issue only disappoint his potential voters from
the ranks of the left, liberals and pacifists.

Of course, antiwar and human rights activists will in
any case get out and vote, if not for Kerry, then
against Bush. But will they actively campaign for the
Democratic candidate?

>From the very outset, it has been clear that the
coalition that has united around Kerry will
disintegrate the moment Bush is out of office. But as
the United States gets increasingly bogged down in the
Iraqi quagmire, it is becoming increasingly apparent
that the coalition is cracking. It can be patched up
cosmetically, but the more effort that is expended on
patching things up, the less energy will be left for
battling the Republicans.

In any country, the opposition depends on the
enthusiasm of its supporters to carry it to victory.
But Kerry’s indistinct political stance will hardly
galvanize opponents of the war; rather, it will help to
consolidate supporters of the war and waverers around
Bush. After all, if there is no alternative to a
military resolution, then why change the country’s
leadership?

Russian statesmen love the proverb "one shouldn’t
switch horses midstream." And that is probably why our
country is permanently in passage across a boundless
political bog. It is entirely possible that this time
the same logic will prevail in the United States. The
first signs are already visible. Contrary to
expectations in Europe, after the uprising began in
Iraq, Bush, who was lagging behind Kerry, retook the
lead in the race for the White House.

Bush junior is often compared to his father, but it is
possible that their political fates will play out in
reverse: Bush senior won his war in the Middle East,
but lost the election; Bush junior will undoubtedly
lose his war, but he may still win the election.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-05/09kagarlitsky.cfm