The dilemma of a no-war president: Winning is not on the cards
WED, APR 06
LEON HADAR
LAST week's economic news was probably greeted with some applause at the White House. The latest employment figures pointed to clear signs of bright lights at the end of the tunnel, with more workers jumping back into the labour market as the pandemic grip was receding.
American employers added 431,000 jobs in the retail and manufacturing sectors in March, marking the 11th straight month of job gains above 400,000, according to the US Labor Department report. It was the longest job expansion in around 80 years.
A continued rise in consumer demand combined with the decline in pandemic-related health restrictions have been driving this growth in employment, as the economy recovered more than 90 per cent of the 22 million jobs lost during the 2020 lockdowns.
But economic uncertainty still remains with inflation reaching 40-year highs, with rising interest rates expected to lower job growth to more modest and sustainable levels.
Pollsters have been wracking their brains as they try to figure out why despite this good news President Joe Biden's approval rating remains in the 40s. The conventional wisdom is that the surging inflation and rising prices, in particular of gas, are killing the overall good news about the receding pandemic and thriving job market.
Yet these conclusions do not take into consideration the fact that economic news has not dominated the US media coverage in more than 3 months, and that instead, Americans have been bombarded by 24/7 media coverage of the war in Ukraine and President Biden's handling of that crisis. Surely President Biden's forceful response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression against its neighbour should have had some impact on the US leader's approval ratings?
US presidents have traditionally seen their popularity rising during international crises, and in particular during wars. That reflected the rally-behind-the-flag effect that the encounter with a foreign threat has had on the American people.
But it would be a stretch to describe the role of the current White House occupant as that of a War President. If anything, President Biden has repeatedly insisted that the US would not deploy American troops to help the Ukrainians fight the Russian invaders.
In addition to ordering massive economic sanctions against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) allies have provided Kyiv with military assistance, including drones and anti-aircraft systems. Just last Wednesday (Mar 30) President Biden announced that the US would offer Ukraine an additional US$800 million in security assistance.
But then Biden has rejected any proposal to take action that could lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and the US, like establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Doing so would mean that Nato forces would have to directly engage with any Russian planes spotted in the skies and shoot at them if necessary.
From that perspective, by telling President Putin during a rally in Warsaw, Poland, "don't even think about moving to one single inch of Nato territory", President Biden has actually sent a message to the Kremlin that it would not go to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non-Nato territory. Hence in practical terms that means that Biden is a, well, No-War President.
Which brings us to the political dilemma President Biden would eventually face, and which could affect his standing both at home and abroad.
President George HW Bush had played the role of a war president when he sent US military troops to Iraq to force its leader Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. The Americans defeated the Iraqi army, liberated Kuwait, marking a military victory which was won under the leadership of President Bush the First.
His son George W Bush was transformed into a war president when he decided to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban from power and then occupy Iraq and free it from Saddam Hussein's rule. Declaring "Mission Accomplished", president Bush II was celebrated by the American people for his unquestionable military win.
So when president Bush II described Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a "torturer, a murderer" and a "disgusting tyrant", and depicted the war against him as a battle between good and evil, he created expectations among Americans that he would not allow such a horrible character to remain in power and that getting rid of him was the American political-military goal. And he ended up fulfilling those expectations.
President Biden seemed to have followed in the footsteps of these 2 presidents. If president Bush I denounced the illegal Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, President Biden has pledged to bring an end to the illegal Russian occupation of Ukraine.
And like president Bush II, President Biden has referred to his current international nemesis as a "war criminal" and a "butcher" - a charge that suggests that he seeks President Putin's downfall, while describing the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine as a global "battle between democracy and autocracy".
And according to the opinion polls, President Biden has been successful in persuading the American people that, indeed, President Putin is a monster and that in the current struggle, democracy has to defeat autocracy.
The problem is that President Biden has been creating expectations among Americans that he would not be able to fulfil. He made it clear that unlike in the case of Kuwait, the US is not going to use its military power to liberate Ukraine.
And notwithstanding his attacks against the Russian leader, President Biden and his aides have maintained that Washington is not seeking a "regime change" in Moscow. Ousting the "butcher" in the Kremlin from power and replacing autocracy with democracy in Russia is not on the cards.
That will not happen for the same reason that the Americans refrained from employing military power when Russian troops started moving towards Budapest in 1956 to suppress an insurgency led then by Hungarian freedom fighters.
Some American officials had even encouraged the Hungarians to continue fighting even though it was clear that saving them by going to war against Russia was not a realistic option then for the same reason that it is not a viable choice today. The reason is that Russia is in control of nuclear weapons and the US wants to avoid a military confrontation with a nuclear power that could destroy the US. That is International Relations 101.
So in practical terms that means that it is more than likely that even under the best case scenario from the perspective of President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Putin could achieve at least some of his goals in Ukraine, perhaps through a partition of the country, and would certainly remain in power in Russia.
The images of the Russians bleeding on the battlefield and of the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom may be celebrated by many Americans, even though no one expects the Ukrainians to rout the Russian army without direct military support from Nato.
But then it would be difficult to market a diplomatic deal between Putin and Zelensky or even a continuing stalemate in the war as a victory for the US or as a political triumph at home for the president, especially if the economic consequences of the war would worsen the domestic inflationary pressures and lead to rising oil prices. A No-War president does not win wars and would find it difficult to strengthen his political standing at home.