October Surprise?

When an administration is in trouble right before an election, it sometimes resorts to an “October surprise” designed to build support. Certainly this administration is in trouble, about Iraq especially; but other factors such as the Abramoff scandal, Congressional corruption, and a Republican Representative who has been sending sexually oriented instant messages to congressional pages have made its prospects worse. The mother of all issues remains the war, however, which is not going well. The military is becoming more outspoken about its unhappiness with the situation; the intelligence services are saying that the conflict in Iraq is producing more terrorists, not fewer; the budget and personnel costs are rising, spawning disquiet even in Republican districts.

As an economist, I am often asked, especially by new acquaintances, “What is the market going to do?” “Is the economy going to continue to grow strongly?” My answer is usually to refer them to the local psychic, fortuneteller, or palm reader. When I was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan Administration, I was asked frequently to forecast future economic trends. Again I was uncomfortable but asked our staff to stir the entrails of the computer and produce a “forecast” that we could hope would be sufficiently ambiguous so that, when the future became the past, we had a fig leaf to stand behind. (Alan Greenspan was a master at this.) Therefore, it is with some trepidation that I put forward a conjecture on what George W. Bush may do in the next month. Let me add that I believe these possible initiatives by the president would be disastrous but that given his record he might act as projected.

This president makes a fetish of looking strong and aggressive. Thus, if he is to change course in Iraq, which looks increasingly like his only option, he will want to offset his change with a new and aggressive move. My scenario starts with James Baker, who is heading jointly with Lee Hamilton a bipartisan study group on Iraq, telling the president that he is in a hole and had better stop digging. Baker may suggest that the U.S. should force the Iraqi government to step up to the plate by announcing that we will pull our troops out by a date certain. The president will make this recommendation public. He will promise that most of our soldiers will be gone by the end of 2007 or, at the latest, by mid-2008. For Republicans this has the advantage of removing the issue before the next presidential elections and in all probability from this midterm poll.

To maintain his macho image, however, the president will also announce that we will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if that country refuses to stop enriching uranium within a week. He is currently laying the political groundwork for this by asserting that the Democrats would be unwilling to preempt militarily an aggressive state. The Democrats, he says, will “wait until we’re attacked again,” implying that he will strike before we are assailed. Bombing Iran will be couched in terms of eliminating that country’s ability to attack us with atomic weapons.

Employing force against Iran will please the pro-Israel lobby and the hawks in and out of the administration. Vice-President Dick Cheney has been urging an attack on Iran and will be outspoken in his support. George Bush has found being a wartime president to be rewarding, especially at the start of a fight. Right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the violence has gone on too long and our troops are bogged down. It is quite possible that we may lose these conflicts, so he might think it good politics to start a new war, this time with Iran, a country on his list of the ‘axis of evil.’ Bush may believe that it will give him a lift for the next few months.

Unfortunately this tactic might work. People will see a “strong” president going after the “evil guys.” Initially the public, which sees most wars, at least until they get bloody, as games, such as the World Series or the Super Bowl, only larger, may rally around the flag. In this case there will be no messy street fighting or IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devises). The bombing will be likely to produce few if any casualties. The public will support the Republicans and the president will get his own servile Congress again. He will, of course, lose the support of Europeans, not just the old ones, but the “new” Europeans as well. I doubt seriously that Tony Blair will be able to support him in such a bombing campaign, but then the president has shown that he doesn’t care what other nations think.

As long as he holds off on using nuclear weapons during the bombing, Bush can threaten Iran that, if it retaliates, either by sending missiles against Israel or by trying to close the straits of Hormuz, the U.S. will respond with nuclear weapons. If everyone hates us already, what do we have to lose by lobbing a few nuclear shells. Thus he might be able to get away with the bombing without any serious repercussions, at least, in the short run.

Although this is a scary scenario, it seems all too possible. Certainly I hope that my forecasts here are no better than my predictions concerning the economy. Perhaps Bush will simply stay with Iraq and continue to threaten Iran; but if the threats are to be meaningful, he will feel forced to act. If so, why not now when he needs the jolt to get the congress he wants. Should Bush do something like this, let us hope that the voters will be clear-sighted enough to see through his scheme.