# Posted 10:28 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

A WAYWARD THOUGHT: In an otherwise excellent editorial, the WaPo observes that

Mr. Bush noted in passing on Thursday that the transition [in Iraq] "will take time," but he has done little to prepare Americans for the large and sustained commitment of U.S. troops and resources that will be needed.

This business about "preparing" the American public has become pretty cliche by now. Yes, it would help for Bush to talk more about the United States' obligation to invest substantial resources -- both political and economic -- in the rebuilding of Iraq.

But the ones who need "preparation" are not America's voters, but rather the foot-dragging opponents of nation-building within the President's own administration. While the President himself has been fairly straightforward about our commitment to rebuilding and promoting democracy in Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld have not shown much interest. If they don't speak out, high-ranking officers may well take that as invitation to lobby for a strategic withdrawal before the President's objectives have been fully achieved.

Also more important than persuading the American public is persuading the Republicans on Capitol Hill. They have the sad habit of identifying nation-building as the extension of welfare-state politics rather than a projection of fundamental American values which enhances our national security.

Finally, the President ought to consider lobbying the Democrats on Capitol Hill to ensure bipartisan support for the reconstruction of Iraq. While Democrats tended to support such operations under Clinton, there will be a strong temptation for them to re-enact their successful effort to deprive the President's father of a second term by portraying him as more concerned with the welfare of those abroad than those at home.

If both Democrats and Republicans strongly fall in line behind the President's insistence that we must promote democracy in Iraq, the American public will follow. When both parties reach consensus on foreign affairs, the American public almost always interprets such consensus as an indication of what is clearly in the United States' national interest.

More than any president address, televised or not, the critical determinant of American attitudes toward nation-building will be the tenor of the 2004 campaign. If Republican candidates show pride in the United States effort to promote enduring freedom in Iraq, voters will recognize that the GOP's commitment is serious. If Democrats describe our efforts in Iraq as an extension of the Clinton administration's efforts in Bosnia & Kosovo, voters will recognize that they support reconstruction as well.

Perhaps the more probable scenario is one of silence. Republicans will avoid the issue of reconstruction in order to avoid suggesting that they care more about the people of Iraq than their own constituents. Democrats will avoid the issue as well, figuring that the less attention given to foreign affairs, the better.

Such an outcome would throw the ball back into the adminstration's court. If it were a second Bush administration, it is hard to know what might happen. The bureaucratic struggle would resume, this time without the imperative of re-election hanging over both sides. If it were a Democratic administration, who knows.

Well, at least the WaPo seems committed to keeping the Iraq on the agenda.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion