Send Bush To Baghdad


by Kenneth S. Baer

One deeply ingrained political superstition is to never talk about
what will happen after the election until your candidate has won.
These days, for instance, no matter what the polls say, every
speechwriter pens both a victory and a concession speech (and now a
third speech in case of a tie).

But at the risk of tempting fate, allow me to pose a question: What
will George W. Bush do if he loses the presidency?

On January 20, 2005, Bush will be only 58 years old, and in good
health. Unlike Gerald Ford, he is too young to hit the celebrity
golf tournament circuit. Unlike Richard Nixon, he has shown none of
the intellectual curiosity or aptitude to write tomes about foreign
policy. Unlike Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, he has shown little
interest in becoming a world statesman, having alienated many of our
allies and traveled little as president. And unlike a vice
president, it would be unseemly for him to jump on corporate boards.

If George W. Bush loses this election, he will face a career crisis
not seen since his days as a failed oil wildcatter before he was
elected governor of Texas. But like all confused job seekers, Bush
should follow his passion, which is clearly bringing freedom and
democracy to Iraq. That is why if John Kerry is elected president,
he should appoint Bush to be his ambassador to Iraq.

It would be an unprecedented move, to be sure. Yet ex-presidents
have been used before for special diplomatic missions, and it's been
a long time since the United States faced a crisis like the one in
Iraq.

Bush would be a perfect fit for the job in Iraq. No one can doubt
his dedication to the cause. As he put it, "people in the Middle
East want to be free," and that "freedom is the almighty God's gift
to each man and woman in this world." Who can argue with that? Bush
should be given the chance to deliver God's gift to the Iraqi
people.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Iraq is too dangerous for an ex-
president. After all, a large swath of the country is a no-go zone,
and even the secure Green Zone in Baghdad was the scene of a recent
bombing. Stop being so pessimistic! Although the president says that
securing Iraq is "hard work," he also points out over and over again
that "we're making progress." Bush himself told us that there are
only "pockets" of anti-coalition violence, and "Iraqis are ready to
fight for their own freedom" (even though the Iraqi-led "Fallujah
Brigade" disbanded in the face of attacks during recent fighting in
Sadr City and 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits were massacred by
insurgents this week).

Most of all, Bush will have help in Iraq; as he said during the
first presidential debate in September, "Our alliance is strong." It
doesn't matter that 90 percent of the casualties are American, that
the Spanish have pulled out, and that the Poles are itching to do
the same. President Bush knows how to unite the world. This time, he
can unite the world alongside, not against, the United States.

Once in place, Bush will at last have a chance to execute his plan
for postwar Iraq, without the bothersome media "filter" that has
plagued his presidency and hampered his efforts in Iraq during these
past two years. As our man in Baghdad, he'll no longer have to
listen to those naysayers -- like the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- who
contend that there was no realistic or comprehensive plan for the
reconstruction of Iraq. Bush told us months before the invasion
that "we will plan carefully." Let's take him at his word and give
him the chance as ambassador to put his plan into action.

First, Bush will have to help the Iraqis with their own elections
planned for January, which he insisted during the first presidential
debate will be held on schedule. In light of United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement last month that continuing
violence "may threaten elections planned for January and has forced
U.N. international staff to be limited to 35," Bush will have to go
to Baghdad himself and lend some of his expertise in the electoral
process to the task of making sure that the elections do, in fact,
happen.

Once a democratic government is in place, Ambassador Bush will have
to work with the Iraqis to rebuild their country. So far, only $1
billion of the $18 billion reconstruction aid package has been
spent, and only 12 of the 2,300 reconstruction projects have been
completed. Senator Chuck Hagel, the Republican from Nebraska, has
called this slow pace "beyond pitiful … beyond embarrassing … now in
the zone of dangerous."

Clearly what is needed is new leadership. With Kerry in the White
House and Bush in Baghdad, we'll have it in both countries. Even
better, we'll have an ambassador who is personally invested in the
future of Iraq like no other that I can think of. There is no
politician in the country or leader in the world whose reputation
hinges more on the outcome there than Bush's. So the choice this
November 2 is clear: Send Kerry to the White House and Bush to
Baghdad.