In this thread, we discuss Political Implications of the Capture of Saddam
 

Saddam is now Captured. The Iraqi people are dancing in the streets, and France and Germany have issued statements about how great this is. The world will have justice.

As well, this will affect the economy greatly - Stocks and Equities are bound to skyrocket tomorrow, and the U.S. Market is already closed right now from Friday at above the pyschologically sensitive 10,000 mark, and will go even higher over the next week.

So, lets discuss the Presidential race. The President's approval ratings will undoubtedly raise, a main objective in the war in Iraq has been accomplished. The economy has been reaching new levels over the past few months, with the earlier raise in the GDP, the Dow above 10,000, etc.

Do the Democrats have anything left to use against the President? Howard Dean's platform - being against the war in Iraq - has been dealt a major blow.

Has President Bush just recieved a great chance at Four More Years?

It won't be used in any of the platforms, that's a given - but it will still have wide-ranging implications. Bush can campaign on the positive news coming from Iraq. The pictures do itself. But the economic boost, etc...all are factors.

This will have little impact on the Presidential race. Any rise in the stock market will not be due to rational stock valuations, therefore it won't last 3 1/2 quarters. The one thing that will determine whether or not President Bush is reelected is the state of the economy in the next two quarters. There needs to be sustained growth of over 3.5% in each of these quarters, and job creation must begin in the second quarter. If this happens, then the election is over and President Bush is reelected.

Internally (US)- probably nothing. In the end, it's all about local economics.

As for the other internal (Iraq) - 4 possible outcome

1. The rebellion will be disfranchised. Decrease of attack.
2. Consolidation of the rebellion. Since it's no longer "Saddam" attack, people might be more willing to join it.
3. Status quo and eventually democrazation after 10 to 15 years of occupation
4. Worst case scenario - Quick historical background:

Iraq is a totally artificial creation, carved by the Brits out of the remnants of the Ottoman empire. And the Brits had quite a time holding it together (the Shi'ite uprising of the early 1920s was the BIG colonial war they had to deal with right after World War I).

The Ba'athists held the country together by brute force--because that was the only way it could be held together

[Just a Stalin held the USSR together, and Tito held Yugoslavia together, and Ataturk held Turkey together: by crushing any whisper of separatism & smashing any uppity ethnic groups]

And Saddam held the Ba'athists together.

Subtract Saddam, subtract the Ba'athists and what do you get?

Sectarian civil war

It may be not be an event, but, on Tuesday a Sunni mosque in baghdad was attacked. On Wednesday a Shi'ite mosque was attacked. On Friday sermons throughout Sunni & Shi'ite mosques made much reference to these attacks. Perhaps Wahhabi fanatics are organising these attacks. perhaps not.

When Dick Morris spoke at my school in the spring (he's an astute political analyst who strategized Clinton's success), he said that if the war started succeeding, people would get bored and not vote for Bush. He said the novelty was in defending Bush constantly. So who knows!

I agree. I think most people are more concerned about the US economy and job market than the war in Iraq. The capture of Saddam may make people a little bit happier with Bush but I don't think it will effect his overall candidacy for reelection. If Bush can successfully turn this economy and job market back around, people will have enough faith in him to reelect him for another 4 years.

This is probably right unless Bush did something to piss people off besides the economy. I think most people are giving the military the credit not Bush. It was bound to happen as long as he decided to stay and hide in Iraq. Bush might try to use it in the race but I doubt he would because people would bring up he started the war because of the WMD's he never found.

This is beyond "probably right." I didn't make up those metrics that condition his reelection. Unless he runs a pathetic campaign, like Al Gore did, and if those metrics are met, then George Bush will absolutely be reelected. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it.

Glad you can tell the future. So if he met those metrics and lost would you come up with another reason to prove you were not wrong? :p

Saddam is in US custody. It's not too much to think that before long he will have revealed where the WMD's were and have been moved to.

If nothing else, after Saddam's trial and when his horrific abuses have been laid bare, Bush will be justified.

Now that we have Saddam, more of those special units can be shifted back to Afghanistan and we can locate UBL. If they can capture him before the election, Bush is re-elected.

Kitso
KS 361

I won't be wrong. Period. I don't regurgitate the crap that CNN, Fox or party DTPs feed most people. I don't claim to be able to predict the future, I merely claim to be educated. 11 months until I'm proven right.

I seriously doubt that WMDs will be found. Iraq maintained the capability, but may not have the finished product. Besides, we did not go into Iraq for WMD. We went in for geopolitical realignment in the region.

Finding Usama bin Laden will have nothing to do with Bush's reelection prospects. If bin Laden is found, and we are experiencing 2% growth with 5.5% unemployment, Bush will be a 1 term president. Guaranteed.

So anyone this disagrees with you is uneducated? Classy

No, any one who choses to ignore 3/4 century of metrics in favor of diatribe is indeed uneducated.