Soon after the operation to topple Saddam began, even as they bemoaned the pending military
catastrophe there, extremists on the left accused President Bush of creating a war for political gain. They
derided him for sending our men and women into harm’s way to sweeten his re-election prospects. At the time, I
thought this allegation was ludicrous; anyone should have been able to see the political risk he was taking.
Indeed, the President put his very political life at stake by engaging war in the Middle East.
The war, in fact, almost cost Mr. Bush the election last year. Had he chosen a different course, so much of
the anti-Bush sentiment that screamed so loudly during the campaign would have been, at least in part, muzzled.
Imagine if he had decided not to go into Iraq. Imagine if the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan and the
pursuit of Osama bin Ladin had dominated the headlines in the months prior to the election. I believe the
country’s attitude toward the President would have been significantly more positive on election day. Subtract
the couple hundred billion dollars we’ve spent in Iraq from a much-publicized federal deficit and bring back the more
than 1800 Americans lost, and you have the makings of a landslide. Without the political baggage Iraq became for
the President, only the most radical could have found serious fault in his administration of the War on Terror.
Sure, his political opponents would have found something to gripe about, but their influence on a vast majority of
voters would have been minimal.
Yet a War on Terror that didn’t include taking out Saddam might well have included a major terrorist attack on us
or our allies facilitated by the dictator’s evil regime. None would deny he had the will and desire to bring
such destruction on us. Few would deny, if given enough time and enough insulation from international scrutiny,
that he would have sought that capability. Now we’ll never know - thankfully. That inability to know what
would have happened, however, highlights a potential disaster for Mr. Bush’s presidential legacy and, by association,
GOP candidates in 2006 and 2008.
Another terrorist attack on America on the scale of September 11, 2001 would open the President up to cries of
gross mismanagement - even negligence - with regard to America’s pursuit of her terrorist enemies. In the
event of another attack, some would criticize the President for failing to keep us safe - even without our
involvement in Iraq - but given all the resources and manpower we’ve committed to the struggle there, that criticism
would surely resound with a much larger slice of the electorate.
Indeed, defending the war in Iraq will certainly become much more difficult if a major terrorist attack is carried
out here in the near future. Who knows if the "rally-around-the-flag" effect would be swept away amid the perception
that Bush dropped the ball and enabled what could have been prevented? In terms of Bush’s legacy, history may
then view him as the man who severely undermined the security of America during a time when we critically needed to
be secure. And GOP candidates all over might be subject to the wrath of furious and grieving voters adamantly
demanding a change in direction.
Truth be told, whether we are attacked again or not, we will never know for sure what the Iraq war enabled and
what it prevented. It is entirely possible that by fighting so many of the enemy in Iraq - augmenting our
continuing global pursuit of terrorists everywhere - that we have actually hindered the terrorists’ ability to launch
a grand-scale attack against us. On the other hand, it is also possible that our involvement there has aided the
terrorists in their quest to inflict their horror upon us - though I must admit I can’t fathom how. Finally, the
possibility exists that we’ve neither increased nor decreased the likelihood of an attack by taking on Saddam and the
terrorists in Iraq.
Looking ahead to the next 3 years or so, we will either be attacked or we won’t. If we aren’t attacked, some
in Bush's camp may tout our strategy, including Iraq, as the reason. They may or may not be right - we’ll never
know. If we are attacked, the left will say the Iraq war is the cause and Bush is the culprit. They may or
may not be right - we’ll never know. The truth will be elusive in either case. One thing I will say,
whether deciding to wage war in Iraq was the right decision or not, without that action the President’s legacy and
the GOP’s prospects in the near term would be much less vulnerable to attack from an attack.
