War Games

It should come as no shock that such a sedentary society should be fascinated by televised poker. Most of the contestants, in desperate need of a shower and stomach staple, usually make us feel better about ourselves. The only lower form of entertainment would be watching people watch people playing poker.

Coincidentally, this presidential campaign has devolved into a game of Texas Hold ‘Em with world supremacy at stake. The contestants are Bush, Kerry, and Terrorism. (The French and Germans predictably folded.)

After 9/11, Bush is dealt pocket aces and Kerry two deuces while Terrorism’s hole cards are unknown.

By going to war, Bush with the strongest hand goes "all in" earlier than he needs to. The Flop - when the dealer turns over three cards which the players can combine with their own to make the best hand - is the war in Iraq, which started off well but is now highly volatile. Neither Bush nor Kerry improved his position.

Then comes the Turn card this week - another 2 - the revelation that we were way off in thinking Saddam had WMDs ready to use against us or sell to someone who would. It's a crushing blow to the Bush campaign. If Saddam wasn't armed with WMDs, if he was merely a bad guy who hates the U.S. and tortured his own people, then the cost of this war wasn't worth it. Bush's "the-world-is-safer-without-Saddam" argument only worked when we thought he had the capacity to strike. The desire to strike didn't merit going into Iraq. So after the Turn, Bush is left to say, “But look at the cards we have in our hands! I have two aces, and he only has two 2s! He’s only benefiting from the last card that turned up!” It’s true. Kerry isn’t holding superior cards. He doesn’t have a better strategy for the war on terror or even a proven track record to suggest he’d make good decisions. But this Turn of events, this latest development, will put Kerry in front with the American people, rendering Bush’s once mighty aces momentarily helpless. Suddenly, Kerry has three 2s compared to Bush's two aces. Kerry's in the lead.

The irony is that Bush’s hand may still be better than Terrorism's, at least for the time being. There’s no evidence that attacking Iraq – even if done spuriously – has given Bin Laden, et al-Qaida the upper hand in this fight. In fact, Terrorism may well be losing, as evidenced by Libya coming clean and a general sense that Bush is just crazy enough to go postal on any nation that lets Osama so much as shack up for the night. Keep in mind, they’ve been looking at those weird facial expressions and body language longer than Kerry.

So now the world waits on the River, the final card to be revealed by the dealer. Bush needs an ace - either direct evidence Saddam was planning to do us harm or, of course, the mother lode, capturing Bin Laden - to win another four years. Anything less will force him to bluff the American people into believing he still has what it takes to win. Meanwhile, the sweat from the Democratic Convention has returned to Kerry’s brow in spades as he prays against an ace or any card that would help Terrorism. Because, as he told us at the Democratic Convention, he doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve, Kerry is free to use that sleeve to dab the beads of perspiration. A measly pair of deuces has become the best hand because of the extra 2 on the Turn. Confident in his newfound trio of 2s, Kerry - as Bush did earlier - pushes all of his chips to the middle, as well.

And while each party points its best poker face toward the other, both can see out of the corners of their eyes that Terrorism is refusing to go Allah in, instead holding onto a handful of chips so it can fight another day. Bush, Kerry, and all of us watching force ourselves to believe Terrorism has the weakest hand, and the game continues under that assumption. An ace or the bluff of the century keeps Bush in office and could keep Terrorism for the time being off balance and on defense. Anything but an ace puts Kerry in, which could either help reunite the world against this common enemy or prompt Terrorism to use some of its remaining chips to test the new administration’s resolve with a strike late in 2005 – just as they’ve done during the first year in office of the past two Presidents (Clinton had the WTC bombing in 1993; Bush had 9/11 in 2001).

Inherent in gambling, of course, is that our assumptions are often wrong. (There’s a reason why casinos, not gamblers, keep building bigger barns.) If Terrorism isn’t holding the weakest hand but instead foists upon the table a trump card in the form of another attack on U.S. soil, it won’t matter who winds up in the White House. Everyone will know who really holds the cards.

Maybe both sides should start asking the Dealer to have mercy.