A closer look: Iraq war to be major issue in 2004 presidential election
By Colleen Honigsberg
Jan. 20, 2004 9:00 p.m.
The war in Iraq doubtlessly will be one of the most important
issues at stake when voters turn out to determine whether they will
re-elect President Bush in 2004.
Though it is too early to determine how Bush will be affected by
the war in the upcoming election, Tuesday night’s State of
the Union address gave him a chance to convince members of all
political parties that war efforts have been successful.
Although an official military victory was declared just a few
weeks after the war began, more American troops have died in
reconstruction efforts than in the war.
More than 500 troops have died in conflict in the Middle East
since the war started on March 20.
As Bush reiterated in his address, he plans to keep American
soldiers in Iraq until a democracy is established there.
The Bush administration has developed a complex election system
for Iraq in which direct, nationwide elections are not held.
Instead, each of the 18 provinces is charged with the task of
electing its own leader.
According to Jordanian reporter Rami G. Khouri, the proposal
faces skepticism among Middle Easterners because some consider the
complex election system a way for Americans to influence
Iraq’s political elections; they suspect the United States
will use these elections to put certain individuals in power.
The conflict here is obvious, and how the Bush administration
resolves it may be a key issue as to whether Bush is re-elected in
November.
If Americans view the war overall as being a success, Bush will
have an advantage over his opponent, analysts say.
Fellow UCLA political science professor, John Zaller, said that
at this point and time the effect of the Iraq war on U.S. voters is
unknown.
“The effect of the war will depend very heavily on how the
fighting and pacification go. If you can tell me how the war will
go, I will tell you how it will affect the election,” Zaller
said.
Establishing a democracy in Iraq may prove to be the most
difficult part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a country such as
Iraq where the majority of the citizens are under 15 years old and
where the previous government was a violent dictatorship, American
democracy would be a severe lifestyle change, said Sen. Robert
Byrd, D-W. Va. before the war began.
The Bush administration defended its plan by saying it fears
that these lifestyle changes, among other factors, will be so great
that the Iraqi citizens will need time to adapt to democracy, even
if a new regime is implemented. Specifically, the administration
said it fears corruption within the election process, according to
The Associated Press.
Not all Iraqis agree these fears should prevent Iraq from
implementing the same direct election system used in the United
States.
Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Husseini al-Sistani, is one such individual who objects to the
plan.
He said that if direct elections are not instituted, he will
issue an edict encouraging all Muslims to deny the legitimacy of
any leader elected under the American system, according to the
AP.
Though Sunni Muslims were traditionally in power in Iraq, the
majority of the population in Iraq is composed of Shitte
Muslims.
In the upcoming election, Zaller said he thinks the resolution
of this and other political conflicts will have much more
importance than the initial decision to go to war.
“The latest news from Iowa, in which the most outspoken
anti-war candidate cannot get close to a majority in his own party,
suggests that Democrats would probably not attack the decision to
go to war in Iraq if the election were going on right now,”
Zaller said.
“They would instead question how the war was managed,
especially the lack of allied support,” he added.
With reports from Daily Bruin Wire Services.
