With the anniversary of the first foreign attack on American soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor looming on the immediate horizon, the nation's collective eye is once again on President Bush.
Not unlike the days and months following Sept. 11, a nation awaits his actions. This time, however, a division exists on the President's primary issue: the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Bush has declared his intention of sending armed forces to invade Iraq and is seeking Congressional approval for power to declare war.
While declaring war on terrorism was a move supported by virtually all members of Congress, many adverse side effects could arise if Bush decides to invade Middle Eastern soil, according to U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.
\Congressional authorization ... will depend on the mission that Congress is asked to support, and should not be dictated by the administration before Congress is given a better understanding of what form any action against Iraq would take,"" Feingold said.
Michael Barnett, professor of International Studies and Political Science at UW-Madison, said it will be ""very tricky"" for Bush to get congressional approval, especially with a lack of proof pointing to an attack against America by Iraqi agents.
""A preemptive attack against Iraq without compelling evidence that Iraq is about to attack the U.S. is unprecedented,"" he said.
David Canon, professor of political science and congressional studies at UW-Madison, said he sees a compromise as having a better chance of swaying Congress.
""A compromise position is more likely to pass'one [that would] try to get a thorough and exhaustive weapons inspection by the U.N. in Iraq and if either Iraq fails to cooperate on that or just lets them in and out again, then at that point Congress would authorize President Bush to use force,"" Canon said.
A major concern over the invasion is the political fallout among U.S. allies in the Middle East.
The invasion of Iraq will be an ""absolute disaster"" in maintaining both stability and quality relations in the Middle East, according to UW-Madison political science professor Bruce Cronin.
All three of the UW-Madison professors agreed that this will be an extremely pivotal moment in the presidential legacy of President Bush, one that could very well determine whether Bush is remembered as a hero or a villain in the realm of foreign policy.
""If ... the whole regime crumbles within three days and there's no American casualties, and we're able to go in with the U.N. and help to reestablish a more legitimate state, then he'll go down as a Churchill,"" Barnett said. ""If ... it's much bloodier than that, I think he'll go down as maybe the century's worst foreign policy president.""
