It is impossible to separate the two events. George W. Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare an end to the Iraqi conflict and a continuation of the war against terror. He didn't mention Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden has not been mentioned by anyone in the administration for a long time. The idea is to put the war against terrorism in a larger context and to keep the theme of war alive for the next election. George W. is aware that his father was unable to capitalize on his Gulf War victory.

Bush the son, and his handlers, don't want to repeat history, and therefore have undertaken to do battle on several fronts at the same time. On one very prominent front, they will continue to point out that Al Qaeda continues to be a threat, although a very diminished one. On another front, in the days immediately after the troops took Baghdad and brought down the statue of Hussein, Bush began speaking about his economic agenda and the need for Congress to give him the tax cut that he thinks will energize the economy. Bush is dealing with the gap between perception and reality. In the case of his father, the economic upturn was present but not evident. The perception was that he was uninvolved and uninterested in his reelection. In 2003 Bush has the stage at a crucial time and is able to control the agenda to a great extent. By keeping alive the issue of terrorism he will preempt any Democratic candidate's attempt to hijack the discussion by changing the topic. And by challenging Congress regarding the size of the tax cut he can rightly argue that he is concerned about the economy. Furthermore, some of the assumptions concerning the size of the cut can be debated up to the time of the election. If the economy is still sputtering next year, Bush can point to the fact that he didn't receive the support of Congress in his battle to move the economy. Bush already hinted at his strategy.

He cited reports that a tax cut will create jobs, pointing out that Congress was contradicting that basic economic assumption by trying to reduce the amount. In the mid term elections his coattails were strong enough to bring a slim Republican majority to the Senate and to put Republicans in office all across the country. If he is able to maintain his popularity and succeeds in keeping alive the issue of the war against terrorism he may be able to not only influence his reelection but also to give Republicans unprecedented dominance in state legislatures, governorships and national office.

But that plan could just as easily collapse if the economy doesn't respond to the tax cuts, and unemployment figures keep climbing. If it comes to that, Bush and Congress will have to share the blame. In spite of his popularity Bush cannot risk going to the polls in the midst of an economic crisis. At the very least he must prove that he is trying to bring order to the economy. And he will have the difficult task of arguing that his world wide war against terrorism is not the cause of our economic woes. Ronald Reagan was accused of doing damage to the economy by engaging in an arms race with the Soviets. In the end, his gamble paid off.

The Soviet empire collapsed and the economy recovered in time to help his Vice President get elected. As George W. Bush endeavors to deal with the economic problems aggravated by war expenditures and a dormant world market, he must also struggle to build bridges with the nations alienated by their lack of support for the war effort, France, Germany and Russia. They will not be part of the reconstruction of Iraq and the President has every right to keep them out. But there are other issues in which those nations are involved and are credible partners. France and Germany have been very supportive in the war against terrorism and they have been allies in other efforts.

The world economy doesn't recognize boundaries as it once did, and we may need those countries to improve the economies of other countries. Bush can be generous and forget the differences regarding Iraq to reinforce the ties that bind us to Europe. That is a daunting task for a President accused of lacking knowledge or understanding of international politics. He has made his name on the world stage by dint of his weapons. The time has come to add diplomacy to that mix, and a determination to improve the domestic economy. If he manages to show improvement on those fronts, the Democrats will be out of power for another four years.