Whenever anything on the magnitude of capturing Saddam Hussein happens, there are immediate questions about “what this means.” What will it mean for Bush’s poll numbers, will it begin to slow Howard Dean down, will it help Dem candidates who voted for the war resolution, and so on.
I don’t mean for this to sound like a cop-out, but I really believe it’s too soon to tell. That may not be entirely satisfying when we’re looking for immediate answers as to what happens next, but there are far too many variables still in play.
Capturing Hussein may be a turning point in the war. His arrest may lead to fewer attacks on our troops and put the country on the road to stability and self-government. If this happens, Bush’s support is likely to increase and Dem presidential candidates who have opposed the war will probably start backpedaling.
Or his arrest may have no discernable effect In Iraq at all. The attacks may continue, such as the car bombing in Baghdad that killed 17 people hours after news of Saddam’s arrest had begun circulating throughout the world, and Bush’s handling of the war will look increasingly inept.
Initial polling data suggests that people view the capturing of Hussein as a positive development, but not one that significantly changes their opinion of Bush or the war itself.
A Washington Post/ABC poll was conducted last night showed that nearly all Americans (95%) had heard about our troops capturing Hussein, yet the polls had not changed dramatically in Bush’s favor, as many expected they might.
Bush’s overall approval rating was up 4 points to 57%, but the increase was smaller than the margin of error and was at the same level as a similar Post/ABC poll conducted a month ago. While the number of poll respondents saying they “strongly approve” of Bush’s performance as president went up, so too did the number of people saying they “strongly disapprove.”
Better news for Bush were the results about his handling of the war in Iraq, which jumped 10 points to 58%. Will this hold or is it a temporary bump driven by good news? We’ll see.
The same uncertainties surround how Dem primary voters view these developments. If you’re a Howard Dean fan who opposed the war, for example, chances are you feel today exactly as you did on Saturday. If you thought the war was a mistake, you probably still do. Hussein’s arrest changes little.
Indeed, of all the criticisms of Bush’s handling of the war that I’ve heard in recent months, the failure to capture Hussein was rarely at the top of the list. Are rank-and-file Dems likely to suddenly see the war as valuable and worthwhile? I doubt it.
This is why I’m a little skeptical about the strategy of using yesterday’s successful raid on Hussein as a way to go after Howard Dean. I just don’t see this working at all.
Joe Lieberman, for example, said yesterday, “If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a much more dangerous place.”
The problem, as I see it, is that most Democrats don’t really believe this. If the U.S. had never launched an invasion, Hussein would be contained. Hussein didn’t have WMDs, so he really didn’t represent much of a threat to peace and stability in the region. Lieberman and others seem to believe that yesterday’s arrest will change the political dynamic dramatically in favor of proponents of the war. I just don’t see how that’s going to happen.
This is not to say that Dean will be helped by yesterday’s news, but rather that he may not necessarily be hurt by it, at least with regards to the nomination process. The more likely event, I believe, is that Dean’s chances in the general election may be undercut further if people begin to view the war, and Bush’s handling of it, in a more favorable light.
In other words, if Dean is prepared to run a general election race based in large part on Bush’s failures in Iraq, Hussein’s arrest will make Dean’s job that much more difficult.
On a similar note, Wesley Clark may be the candidate best positioned to benefit from the news. While Dem voters who opposed the war will still be disappointed with candidates who voted for the war resolution, and those same voters may start to see Dean as a candidate less likely to challenge Bush on national security issues, Clark’s experience is well-suited for the current circumstances.
As Amy Sullivan wrote yesterday, Clark is in a position to say, “Alright, so you got the bad guy. We did that with Milosevic as well and it didn’t automatically turn around the country. I’ve led a reconstruction, I know what to do, and I know that you can’t turn around and leave before the job is done.”
That kind of experience is invaluable at this point in the process. I’d expect Clark to make this exact argument in stump speeches as soon as he returns from The Hague, where, not incidentally, he’s testifying today about his own background in capturing a brutal dictator and bringing him to justice.