PRESIDENT BUSH HAS NEVER been accused of nuance, especially in his dealings with foreign countries. But the war against terrorism has brought out skills in Bush that even he didn’t know he had. Among them: speechmaking, command of press conferences, and a nuanced approach to foreign affairs. Skeptical of his ability at nuance? I refer you to two comments in Bush’s nationally televised press conference last Thursday in the East Room of the White House. The first involved a question about whether he intends to “go after” Iraq. Bush said he’s focusing now on Afghanistan, but he noted that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Then came this remark: “I think it’s in his advantage to allow inspectors back in his country to make sure that he’s conforming to the agreement he made after he was soundly trounced in the Gulf War.” That was more than an idle suggestion. It was a message, calmly worded and a bit veiled, to Saddam that he may be next on the target list. And the way for him to avoid big trouble would be to allow United Nations inspectors to return to Iraq soon. (They departed in 1999.) Bush didn’t say exactly what would happen if Saddam refuses. But he made sure Saddam knows he’s on Bush’s radar. Bush noted ominously, “we’re watching him very carefully.” Bottom line: Bush put Saddam on notice without riling Arab countries who are wary of carrying the war on terrorism to Iraq. The other comment involved Syria and its request to join the anti-terror alliance. Bush said he’s willing to give them an opportunity. He didn’t cite Syria’s harboring of terrorists, but he cleverly indicated what he expects of Syria. “I’m a performance-oriented person,” the president said. “. . . I appreciate diplomatic talk, but I’m more interested in action and results. I am absolutely determined–absolutely determined–to rout terrorism out where it exists.” Get the drift? I didn’t at first, Bush being a little too nuanced for me. But Charles Krauthammer, Weekly Standard contributing editor and Washington Post columnist, spotted what Bush was getting at. It was this: Syria, I’ll forgive your past association with terrorists, but if you want to join the American side now you’ve got to clean up your act, kick terrorists out of Syria, and quit sponsoring terrorist armies in Lebanon. No doubt the Syrians got the message. But again, Bush didn’t come on so strong that allies in the war on terrorism might get wobbly. Five weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush’s performance as a war president has few detractors. He’s met the first two requirements, assuring the nation he’s in charge and bringing events under control. And he appears to be well on his way to meeting the third–that is, having both a strategy and the will to stick with it to a final (and full) victory. Such a victory would mean that Iraq and Syria are no longer hothouses for terrorism. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
