Prague, Czech Republic, Nov. 8 (UPI) — In the three days following President George W. Bush’s re-election, another 50 Iraqis and three U.S. soldiers died.
The Washington Times
Marc S. Ellenbogen – Outside View Commentator
During those days, I had lengthy conversations with ambassadors and businesspeople, several European leaders, a prime minister and foreign minister, a former foreign minister and European commissioner. I also chaired one of the Prague Society’s respected Public Policy Dinners and joined the Alerdinck Foundation in The Hague, Netherlands, for a discussion with 10 leading Arab journalists.
The general mood was dour and dejected.
On Nov. 2, 2004 in Boston things were very upbeat at Kerry-Edwards Election Headquarters. As the day continued, as the first exit polls arrived around 2 p.m., the mood even became ecstatic. I began to send text messages to friends, some diplomats and European officials, indicating that Kerry was in the lead. I spoke to a former Canadian federal minister, who queried whether my data were correct. I stated the reports I was getting were from independent exit polls, noting that even a well-known news organization sent me data indicating Kerry was leading. I would continue to send „up-to-the-minute“ text-messages to interested parties in Europe, even Australia, China and New Zealand and Pakistan.
Sometime around 6 p.m., I arrived at Copley Square, where the Kerry campaign’s election night events would take place. I was to meet with Charles C. Adams, a Geneva-based trustee of the Democratic Party. There was a buzz of victory in the air. Well-known Democratic faces scurried past me, with campaign staffers literally running past with briefings and information. „Excuse me, sir“, they would say, as they brushed by. My phone rang.
An Australian federal minister asked if was true, that Kerry was in the lead. „Yes,“ I said, adding „but it’s a long way to Tipperary.“ He laughed as he hung up the phone.
Heading down to the Grand Ballroom, the room from which Kerry and Edwards were to speak, I ran into an old acquaintance. Mark Green, the former New York City public advocate and former Naderite, was the first person to utter some words of caution. A bit later, an adviser to Boston Mayor Tom Menino was more up-beat, a hint of nervousness in her voice. A local congressman was sure, with much regret, that Kerry would lose. I wondered why these three people seemed to judge the mood of the electorate differently than most of the hundred’s of well-placed Democrats buzzing about. With the networks announcing that „New Hampshire had gone for Kerry,“ the crowd erupted into an avalanche of emotion.
It was but a few hours later, as the night progressed, that Charles C. Adams, turned to me, and said, „This does not feel good,“ long before the crowd sensed the same. „Pennsylvania for Kerry.“ The room erupted into massive jubilation, a sense of hope. Adams turned to me with a wry smile, yet looking quite pale. But the mood among the Democrats would become somber, especially after NBC called Florida for Bush. And with Ohio on edge, so did the room become on edge and nervous — silently nervous.
I ran into Mark Green again and began a brief discussion on Iraq with Adams. It seemed like strange timing to be talking about Iraq, with Sens. Kerry and Edwards all but defeated. We agreed that Kerry and the campaign had not defined policy prescriptions for Iraq very clearly, and then much too late. Most Democratic strategists felt victory hinged on Iraq. Later reports would suggest that the religious right was the key to Bush’s victory, with „morality“ being the issue that motivated them.
I was reminded of my Boston „Iraq conversation“ upon my return to Europe. One leading European diplomat, a former undersecretary and ambassador to the United Nations, said the Democrats were uncomfortable with „religion,“ as was candidate Kerry. They had not offered a substantive alternative to Bush, especially on Iraq. At the Prague Society Policy Dinner, a noted Czech politician defended Bush, noting that Europeans were more than happy to send „young American men and women into war while standing on the sidelines.“ This, he added, „did not just apply to Iraq, but could be seen in Yugoslavia and world-wide.“
„We should be pleased America has the moral fiber to do what we fail to do,“ he finished, with much of the room looking bewildered, even annoyed.
In The Hague, the discussion among the journalists, from leading Arabic networks and print media, was lucid and lively. In the evening, at a reception hosted for the attendees, some of the comments angered me: The bombing of Fallujah was called „a form of genocide,“ and there were some truly obsessive attacks on Israel. And though I held my tongue a few times, one of the main points was on the mark: Arab leadership has failed to represent its people and provide direction. On this point, there was general and passionate agreement. One journalist went so far as to state, „Failed leadership on our part preceded the United States making this disastrous decision.“
If President Bush is to provide leadership on Iraq, he must announce the following policy by the end of the year 2004:
— First, the Iraqi elections will proceed in January.
— Second, all U.S. Forces will be removed from Iraq by the middle of 2005.
— Third, U.S. Forces in Iraq will be replaced by forces from Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries — as well as forces from India and Europe.
— Fourth, the $12 billion dollars being spent each month — and $220 Billion to date — on Iraq to support U.S. forces there will be invested in Iraq’s economy.
— Fifth, all contracts given out to date to companies doing business in Iraq will be reviewed. There will be no further, „no-bid“ or „quasi-no-bid contracts“ in Iraq
— Sixth, 50 percent of future contracts will be given to non-U.S. companies and countries
— Seventh, an „Iraq Summit“ with leading nations, and not just the ones who have backed the United States on Iraq
President Bush has announced that elections will be held in January. Now, he must implement the other steps, as difficult as they will be to sell to his advisors and members of his own party.
I have not been, and am not, a supporter of this president. Nonetheless, I believe that, like President Richard M. Nixon in his second term, Bush has the opportunity to leave an important, lasting and constructive legacy. In Nixon’s second term, before the Watergate scandal forced him to resign, a clear legacy was left: China was opened to U.S. policy, a dramatic feat for the time.
I suspect President Bush wants to leave a legacy, and will become the „compassionate conservative,“ he once claimed to be, in his second term. History is on his side. He must step through the portal, or victory will turn to defeat.
(Marc S. Ellenbogen is president of the Prague Society for International Cooperation (praguesociety.org) and chairman of the Global Panel Foundation (globalpane.org). He is a senior adviser to the Oxford University European Affairs Society.)
(United Press International’s „Outside View“ commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)