Bush's Iraq War speech a week ago didn't go down well. His poll numbers, especially on handling Iraq, continued to deteriorate during the week, which is unusual. Normally a Presidential address on an important subject like this provides some boost in the opinion polls, even if it's often short-lived.
The professional pundits are busily dissecting the reasons for the short-term reactions. My own guess is that one of the reasons is that the speech just wasn't very good. Bush is used to getting by politically by throwing out truculent red meat to his Christian Right base on symbolic issues, while offering more moderate voters happy talk, tax cuts and flag-waving.
But people are concerned about various aspects of the Iraq War: the no-show on "weapons of mass destruction"; the unexpected hostility and/or reservations of many Iraqis; the continuing US death toll. Bush didn't really address those concerns.
I'm more concerned about the long-term reactions to the speech. The last two weeks of international diplomacy have so far confirmed suspicions that Powell's effort to get more UN support wasn't particularly serious. This weekend's meeting in Geneva with Britain, France, Russia and China basically seems to have gone nowhere. The Los Angeles Times quotes unnamed Administration officials as saying that "few nations would soon contribute troops or money for rebuilding Iraq even if a U.N. resolution were approved."
That may be partially an exercise in lowering expectations so that any progress looks better. Or conversely, it could be Administration unilateralists pooh-poohing the whole notion. But right now, it seems like a pretty realistic outlook.
And it's a stunning sign of the limitations of United States influence on our allies over the Iraq War. American voters can also justifiably wonder: If we're spending something like one half the military budgets of the entire world, why is it that we have to go begging for military help in this war which both the President and Congress thought was vital enough to American interests to undertake even without a broad international coalition?
No comments:
Post a Comment