ShareThis Page
The politics of war |

The politics of war

| Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:00 a.m

After George H.W. Bush’s stunning February 1991 Persian Gulf War victory, which produced approval ratings in the Gallup Poll of 89 percent, who would have thought the then-president would go on to lose re-election 21 months later with the lowest vote percentage of any president in 70 years?

What’s going to happen in Central Asia and our newly declared war on terrorism• The range of possible scenarios literally boggles the mind.

When former President Bill Clinton’s job approval ratings dropped to 37 percent in June 1993, and his party five months later ceded control of the House and Senate (losing 52 seats and eight seats, respectively), who could have imagined that he would have been easily re-elected in 1996 with an eight-point victory?

During the Monica Lewinsky affair, when the seemingly devastating tapes of Kenneth Starr’s investigation interview with Clinton were about to be released and most thought a presidential resignation was imminent, who would have dreamed that Clinton would end up serving out his full term, leaving office with a 66 percent job approval rating?

For that matter, five months ago, at the height of the search for Chandra Levy when rumors of California Rep. Gary Condit’s impending resignation were rampant, who would have thought that he might seek re-election• Or that it wasn’t such a big story after all?

In each of these cases, one course of action looked fairly obvious to all but the most starry-eyed backers of those men, yet circumstances took a different direction – one thought to have been extremely unlikely before.

Now let’s think about something a little more difficult. What will be the size, scope, intensity and duration of the impending fight in Central Asia against Osama bin Laden• What are the implications• Will there be more terrorist attacks on American citizens at home or abroad• If so, how many will there be• How much damage will they do, and what will the public reaction be• Rarely, if ever, have Americans faced a challenge or crisis as open-ended as this one, a dark alley that leads to who knows where.


In trying to organize a framework to study the domestic political implications of what might happen, I worked up seven scenarios. Then I sent them to a friend who is a foreign policy expert, acknowledging in my message that there were thousands more permutations that could develop. The return e-mail suggested that I left out another real possibility: The tenuous Pakistani government could fall and be taken over by Muslim extremists, allowing bin Laden to take refuge in Pakistan and raising the possibility of a war between the nuclear nations of India and Pakistan. I thought I had already described a nightmare scenario, but then he comes back with Armageddon.

This exercise underscored the futility of even attempting to predict any political consequences for 2002. There are simply too many enormously different variables for anyone to adequately get their arms around them. If the seemingly obvious proves unpredictable, what can be said about the unfathomable?

What’s more, even if we knew a little more about what will happen, who’s to say what the public reaction would be• Some point out that Americans are more united today than at any time since Pearl Harbor was attacked. But does anyone remember what happened in the 1942 midterm election, just 11 months later• President Franklin Roosevelt and his Democratic Party lost 55 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.

At this point, it seems like the person who changes the light bulbs in the CIA director’s office knows as much as the director himself about what will happen next. We have entered uncharted waters, nobody can say where we are headed, and anyone who says they can is flying in the face of U.S. political history.

Charlie Cook is a political analyst and columnist for National Journal.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.