Je vojna proti Iranu lahko zmagovalna strategija za Trumpa?

Včeraj sem na twitterju špekuliral, da bi vojna proti Iranu lahko bila zmagovalna strategija za Trumpa za ponovno izvolitev. Ob vojaških konfliktih se nacija doma običajno poenoti v podpori obstoječi oblasti. Obema predsednikoma iz družine Bush, starejšemu in mlajšemu, se je podpora po začetku vojn v Iraku močno povečala. Bush mlajši je navkljub enormni nepriljubljenosti najbrž zaradi vojne tudi bil ponovno izvoljen.

Vendar zadeve niso nujno tako preproste. Kot danes v Washington Postu piše Michael Tesler, oborožen z empiričnimi politološkimi študijami s tega področja, vojna v tujini še ne pomeni nujno ponovne izvolitve. Študije kažejo, prvič, da je za poenotenje nacije in za povečanje javne podpore obstoječi oblasti potrebna enoglasna politična podpora med strankami. Slednje pa Trump nima.

For example, both George H.W. and George W. Bush’s approval ratings immediately surged after their respective military interventions against Iraq. Trump seemed to quite literally want Americans to rally around the flag when he tweeted a picture of the American flag soon after Soleimani’s demise.

But not all military crises trigger rally effects. Political science research shows that rally effects are most likely to occur when there is bipartisan support among political elites for the president’s actions.

This was true even for the enormous outpouring of support for George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cindy Kam and Jennifer Ramos showed that the patriotic rally behind Bush eroded after Democrats ended their moratorium on criticizing the Republican president.

Of course, Democratic elites have not provided any grace period before starting to criticize President Trump. Democratic leaders quickly condemned the president for ordering the airstrike against Soleimani without informing them, saying that the administration lacked any broader strategy for dealing with Iran.

In drugič, vojaški konflikti v tujini še ne pomenijo ponovne izvolitve, saj naj bi bilo za slednjo po letu 1948 bolj pomembno na eni strani realno povečanje razpoložljivega dohodka, na drugi strani pa negativni učinek kumulativnega števila domačih žrtev v tujini.

Nor would a larger war against Iran increase Trump’s odds of reelection. In fact, Douglas Hibbs’ research suggests it would have the exact opposite effect.

Hibbs’ famed “Bread and Peace” model argues that two factors explain most of the variation in presidential election outcomes since 1948: The positive effects of real disposable income growth and the negative effects of cumulative U.S. military casualties from unprovoked, hostile deployments of American armed forces in foreign wars.

This research suggests that the Democratic Party paid an electoral price for committing U.S. forces in Korea and Vietnam. The Iraq War also appeared to undermine support for George W. Bush’s reelection. Despite narrowly winning in 2004, Bush won fewer votes than expected for an incumbent president in a growing economy.

Vir navedkov: Michael Tesler, Washington Post

Glede na navedeno Trumpu vojna z Iranom naj ne bi koristila, lahko bi imela celo kontra učinek. Seveda pa izkušnje iz preteklosti ne pomenijo nujno ponovitve v prihodnosti. Če je ponovna izvolitev uspela Bushu mlajšemu, lahko še prej Trumpu. Sedanja politična polarizacija v ZDA je precej večja in ne gre več za to, kdo je oseba, ki se poteguje za položaj, ampak ali bodo zmagali prepublikanci ali demokrati.

%d bloggers like this: