It opens to
cheers and bipartisan backslapping. All too often, though, a State
of the Union address lapses into a mind-numbing recitation of a
President's accomplishments -- real or imagined. But if you're
planning to tune in on Jan. 28 to George W. Bush's annual report to
the nation, banish all thoughts of a dreary script. Far from the
usual laundry list, this speech is shaping up as one of the pivotal
moments of Bush's Presidency -- a crucial chance to make the case
for war against Iraq amid growing public doubts.
Although Bush will talk up his domestic agenda, the focus
of his remarks will be Saddam Hussein. Despite his reputation as a
savvy salesman, the President is having a tough time convincing the
world of the need for immediate military action. In fact, support is
ebbing, in part because of Allied appeals to give U.N. weapons
inspectors more time. But such a delay is not without consequences
for the weak U.S. economy. Business executives insist that
indecision over Iraq is leading them to put off investment and
hiring.
NO SCAVENGER HUNT.
Seldom have the stakes been higher for an American leader. "The
State of the Union gives a President a huge audience," says former
Reagan Chief-of-Staff Kenneth M. Duberstein. "He has to lead,
inspire, and sell people on the notion that Saddam requires action
now -- and U.S. troops on the ground for a long time afterwards."
Still, the polls signal danger. "Bush faces a crisis of
public opinion," says pollster John Zogby. In a Jan. 8-12 Pew
Research Center survey, only 42% of respondents said the President
had clearly explained why military force may be necessary, down from
52% in September. "Selling this policy is an enormous challenge,"
says a Bush adviser. "We always knew there would be some dissolution
of support."
The White House hopes to turn the tide with a
stirring Bush speech followed by weeks of stumping in the heartland.
The goal: Turn attention from the U.N.'s weapons hunt to the idea
that Iraq's 11-year pattern of deception is a trigger-point for
intervention. "Keep in mind that the inspectors are not in the
country on a scavenger hunt for weapons," Deputy Secretary of State
Richard L. Armitage said on Jan. 21. "They are there to confirm that
Iraq has destroyed...the weapons that we know exist." That's the
message the Administration will be broadcasting as part of its drive
to shift the burden of proof back onto Iraq.
SECOND VOTE. Just a day before Bush's
speech, on Jan. 27, chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix is slated to
deliver a potentially damning report on Iraq's cooperation with
Security Council demands to disarm. But rather than heed Blix's call
for months of further inspections, Bush & Co. view the report's
likely reference to Iraqi deception as a sufficient cause for
action.
The President's drive for support has been vastly
complicated by antiwar sentiment, especially in Europe. France and
Germany, backed by Russia and China, insist that Bush needs a second
U.N. vote before using force. Even British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, America's strongest ally, prefers, but will not likely
demand, a second vote. "What is very clear from all of our polls is
a profound distrust of Washington -- and Bush in particular," says
Peter Kellner, chairman of London-based pollster YouGov Ltd.
Also weighing heavily on the White House is a war's impact
on the economy. With forecasters scaling back growth estimates for
the fourth quarter of 2002 to the 0.5%-or-less range, the drag on
investment can't be dismissed. In a Jan. 21 meeting with economists,
Bush conceded that war jitters were hurting growth -- which he views
as another reason to get on with it.
Many business leaders
agree. Continued uncertainty "will paralyze capital markets," frets
Allegiance Telecom CEO Royce J. Holland. "That's worse than bad
[economic] news." Even if the Pentagon's scenario of a quick war --
say, four months or less -- pans out, the short-run effects won't be
pretty. Oil prices, already $34 a barrel, could gyrate and global
markets sink in the first weeks of the battle. And consumers could
curb purchases as the nation stays home, glued to TV sets.
OTHER WOES. "People say:
'Gosh, you're a defense company -- war with Iraq must be good for
you,"' says Boeing (BA ) Chairman and
CEO Philip M. Condit. "War is not good for us. Clearly, it would
have a negative impact on commercial air travel." Just the
anticipation of war is hurting some businesses. Daniel R. DiMicco,
CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp. (NUE ), says
commercial builders cite war fears in delaying new orders. "The best
thing would be to get this over with one way or another," he says.
In reality, the idea that war worries are undermining the
economy is overstated. A string of other woes is retarding growth,
among them overcapacity in tech and telecom, a whiff of deflation,
and a weak global economy. "If you could magically remove Iraq [as a
factor], you might get an initial spurt," says Stuart G. Hoffman,
chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. But that's "no
magic elixir."
Still, with so much riding on the outcome of
his anti-Saddam campaign, the President clearly has his work cut out
for him. Yet even backers of the Bush policy say that up to now, he
has struggled to make his case. The President has been "diverted by
the economic situation and his tax-cut proposal," says hawkish
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). "He has to refocus."
DEAD SERIOUS. Buoyed by his skillful Nov.
8 drive to win U.N. approval for Iraqi disarmament, Bush thought
that international support would quiet his domestic critics. Now, he
finds himself bogged down in a Security Council dominated by war
foes. That's why Bush reserves the right to order an invasion at a
time of his own choosing. In the best case, the U.S. would lead a
"coalition of the willing" that storms Iraq within the next few
months. In the worst, it would largely go it alone, using the veneer
of NATO cooperation and access to Mideast military bases as proof of
Allied assent.
Some of Iraq's neighbors are convinced that
Bush is dead serious. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other nations have
launched urgent initiatives to persuade Saddam to go into exile or,
failing that, incite a coup against him. As war clouds gather, Saudi
Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
are shuttling to foreign capitals to head off a U.S. attack -- or at
least show their people that they're trying to avoid Western
intervention. "The regime is not good for the Iraqi people or for
the area," a Saudi royal family adviser says. "It's a question of
convincing others around [Saddam] to take action. You hope someone
in Iraq is listening."
With more than 150,000 U.S. troops
and four carrier battle groups converging on the Persian Gulf, and
hot weather fast approaching, Bush has little time left for
persuasion. Yet foreign policy experts say that in the days that
remain, he needs to marshal his arguments.
FOOL'S GAME? For starters, many diplomats
believe the White House must shed its reluctance to share
intelligence with U.N. search teams. "There is a constant struggle
within the Administration over how much you reveal," says former
Bush State Dept. official Jon B. Alterman. "Do you protect your
sources and make a weaker case, or blow your sources and make a
stronger one?"
GOP strategists are convinced that over the
next few weeks, the spooks will lose this argument, and Bush will
begin releasing spy data about Iraq's weapons program. Using this
material, the President will try to build a damning case against
Saddam.
Next, Bush must explain why waiting longer is a
fool's game. The argument: It strengthens Saddam's hand, since the
longer U.N. inspections drag on, the more Bush's war consensus
frays. Another difficult chore for Bush is outlining his vision for
a post-Saddam Iraq. In theory, transitional military rule is
supposed to give way to a coalition government of democratically
inclined leaders, making a liberated Iraq a beacon of democracy for
other Arab regimes.
FAMILY
FEUD? Still, skeptics abound. Former Colorado
Democratic Senator Gary Hart says Bush must answer two big
questions: How long would the U.S. maintain a military presence in
Iraq, and how much could it cost? After the Afghan campaign, for
instance, noncombatant nations pledged $5.2 billion for
reconstruction, but Kabul complains it's not enough. Today,
opposition to the Iraqi intervention is so strong that assembling an
aid network could prove even more daunting. One big plus: Iraq's
vast oil reserves, which could help pay for postwar rebuilding.
Because he must speak to so many audiences in so many
far-flung locales, the chore Bush faces on Jan. 28 is immense. Thus
far, the President has managed to persuade the international
community of little save his clenched-jaw conviction that civilized
nations must rid themselves of the scourge of Saddam. But is the
Bush Doctrine a coherent step toward peace, or the final act of a
family vendetta? Will the intervention make the world safer from
terrorism, or incite thousands of new fanatics to enlist in a
jihad?
To date, Bush has not managed to put these
questions to rest. And, as he likes to say as the hour of decision
nears, "time is running out."
By Paula Dwyer, Lee Walczak, Richard
S. Dunham, and Stan Crock in Washington, with Michael Arndt in
Chicago, Stanley Reed in London, and bureau
reports
Click to buy an e-print or
reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please
click
here.
Copyright 2003,
by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
