The war on terrorism was interrupted briefly last week by a reminder of an event that seized our attention one year ago, but seems distant today, dwarfed when compared to anthrax threats and military attacks.
This month marks the anniversary of what has become known as the Florida Recount, yet it was anything but a recount. The actual recount, a ten-month examination of Florida's ballots conducted by a consortium of news organizations, indicates that the closest presidential election in American history was, in fact, closer than many realized. More detailed results will find their home in the history books as Americans have turned their attention to the safety of air travel and the security of their mail. What seemed at the time a potential tear in the fibers of our democracy, appears in retrospect, a mere speed bump on the road to today; a road that has led us to a war on terrorism. Memories of "hanging ballots" and Palm Beach voters lay in the shadows as images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames tower above them. How quickly the tragedy of Sept. 11 marginalized a historic moment and cast it from our nation's consciousness.
The election's anniversary did not go unnoticed in my mind - I spent five months working in Nashville, Tennessee at the Gore/Lieberman campaign headquarters. Working 14-hour days among some of the sharpest minds in politics taught me a lot. One trend I noticed was the way the language of political campaigns borrows from the military's lexicon. The word "campaign" itself is derived from its military uses. Political campaigns involve "foot soldiers" positioned strategically in "battleground" states; from within the "trenches" advisors help create "attack" ads; and the ultimate goal is to win a "landslide" victory.
The campaign in Afghanistan is very different from the presidential campaigns that ended one year ago, despite similarities in the language of elections and warfare. Whereas the war rooms in Nashville and Austin plotted social security policies and prepared debate tactics, the war rooms in Washington confront battles where lives are at stake, not swing voters. The conflict in Florida was a partisan, domestic matter; today's focus is on a non-partisan, global threat. In Afghanistan, there will be no recounts and sadly, victory will bring no real winners. While there are differences, certain lessons of Election 2000 are surprisingly applicable to the war on terrorism.
Perception is Reality - Vote counts, recounts, and legal maneuvers were futile after the image of George W. Bush's face appeared on television above the words "42nd President of the United States." In the court of public opinion, the election was over because newscasts create reality. The same public that calls for bin Laden's head today will call for George W. Bush's tomorrow unless he can maintain public support. To do this, Bush will have to win the critical battles fought on each evening's news and every morning's front page. For the moment, approval is strong, but with a sinking economy headed towards Christmas, the task of holding support will grow more challenging.
Don't Forget your Base - How many times since last November have Democrats been asked, "What happened to Tennessee?" Defeat can come from the least suspecting sources. So far, Tony Blair has been an outspoken US ally and many nations have shown their support. However, the true test of our friend's commitment in the fight against terrorism will come not in the weeks immediately following the attacks, but as public opinion in their country's falters.
Already, poll numbers in Europe show a less enthusiastic public than in the US. Just as swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and of course, Florida, were crucial to victory in Election 2000, there are swing members of the coalition against terrorism. Unless America's base of supportive nations stands with us, we stand no chance of holding onto reluctant coalition members. Complicating matters is the question over whether Bush should expand the war on terrorism to nations other than Afghanistan. President Bush may be unable to decide the issue if reluctant coalition members turn against the US in a war on new perpetrators in other countries.
Never Underestimate the Outsider - Al Gore faced an evasive opponent who lacked his experience. George W. Bush, however, exploited his assets and found victory. This is not the first war that America pursued an enemy with fewer resources and a less technologically advanced arsenal. Russians discovered the painful lessons of trying to attack Afghani forces on their land and on their terms. If we are to defeat the Taliban, our strategies will need to be as smart as our missiles. We cannot fight a new war with yesterday's tactics, nor attempt to fight with one hand tied behind our back. To underestimate the Taliban's will is to ensure defeat.
As the saying goes, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It is doubtful that the disaster that Election 2000 produced will ever be repeated, but that is not to suggest that beneficial lessons cannot be gleaned from the experience. President Bush may profit from considering how last year's battle offers lessons applicable to today's war.
