The Outcome of the Election Will Not be Determined by the Enemy

by Robert J. Romano

April 11th, 2004

Conventional wisdom, offered by several political analysts, has stated that the outcome of the presidential election of 2004 hinges on perhaps two issues: 1) how well or poorly the economy is doing, and 2) how well or poor the situation in Iraq is.  "It's the economy, stupid!" has become a token phrase we all know well, from the election year of 1992, however, we will not focus on the intricacies of that issue here.  For the purposes of this piece, we shall focus on the second issue, that of the situation in Iraq, and in extension, Afghanistan.  This conventional wisdom states that if the situation in the war on terrorism is destabilized and chaotic, in Iraq and Afghanistan, if troops and civilians are being murdered, that then President Bush will pay a price at the polls come November.  This assumes that the American people will not re-elect the President if casualties remain a consistent factor in this election year, which clearly then makes the specific issue the tragic deaths of coalition troops, foreign civilians, and the Iraqi people at the hands of insurgents and terrorists.  

        However, this analysis is inaccurate, and it is dangerous.  It is inaccurate because the American people realize that we are at war, and that casualties are to be expected even as we proceed towards the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30th.  We also know that many challenges lie ahead, and that we will remain in Iraq to aid the people there with establishing security, ensuring free elections, and reconstructing the economy there for the 21st century.  We understand that the terrorists will be attempting to derail this process, because we know that a free Iraq, as a free Afghanistan, will be a tremendous defeat for their contemptible cause.  As we mourn the sacrifice of those brave individuals who are fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, we also salute their service.  We respect the reality that the task we have taken for ourselves has not been easy, and it will not be so for the foreseeable future.  Fighting to establish a free democracy in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, will be difficult and it will take time.  We understand that freedom is not free, and we are willing to pay the price of blood, sweat, and tears to make freedom and democracy a reality for those who in the past have not known the blessings of liberty.

        This analysis, as mentioned above, is also dangerous.  It empowers the enemy by sending them the message that through murder, through spreading terror, that they are able to change the course of events, such as in affecting the outcome of the presidential election.  The enemy ought to realize that President Bush and the war on terrorism is the worst thing that has ever happened to them, and the war is obviously a direct result of the attacks waged by al Qaeda on 9/11/01.  It has resulted in the removal at least two safe havens for terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.  By sending the message that a destabilized Iraq could defeat President Bush at the polls, the terrorists are emboldened into believing that the American people will not stand by their leader if things get hard.  And if the American people vote for another candidate instead of President Bush, the wisdom would be that then the war on terror would end, that then America would return to its pre-9/11 mindset.  This is extraordinarily dangerous, because it could very well result in lives being lost.  No interest, save the enemy's, is served by misrepresenting the resolve of the American people.

        By framing the outcome of the election as contingent on the actions of the enemy, analysts commit a disservice to the American people, and put the lives of our troops and also civilians in jeopardy.  Continuing to send the message that terrorists are able to change the outcome of free elections through murder is irresponsible, and as stated above, is inaccurate.  We will not cut and run from Iraq or Afghanistan, and regardless of whichever candidate wins the election, the war on terror will continue.  The American people want the war to continue, they want to see the terrorist foe defeated, and they will choose the candidate at the polls which they determine to be the most fit to accomplishing that task.  Whether or not there is any compelling reason to change horses midstream remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the American people's choice will be between competing visions for America's security, not a choice between whether or not the war ought to continue.

        The President's opponent in 2004, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), has stated that if elected that American forces will remain in Iraq.  Analysts presuming that the American people will hold the President accountable for the actions of the enemy misrepresent the Senator's own position.  This line of analysis really presumes that a vote against the President is a vote against the war.  However, while anti-war factions may very well support Senator Kerry, they do not constitute a majority of the American people.  Moreover, if the American people believe that the Senator would cave into the fringe interest of the anti-war "movement," they will not elect Senator Kerry to be the President.  If we are not confident with the resolve of the Senator, we will not vote for him, and he will not win the election.  Needless to say, Senator Kerry must make a strong case for America's security if he wishes to court our votes, however, this may be a hard task to balance with the interests of the anti-war factions.  Can Senator Kerry simultaneously play on discontent against the war itself, and articulate a strong message for America's security? The American people will not cut and run, and furthermore they will elect the candidate which offers the best possible vision for America's security.  The outcome of the election of 2004 will not be determined by the actions of the enemy to commit murder, it will be determined by the American people.