And is it good or bad for Kerry? Yes, no one actually wants the US to fail, but the question is whether this failure will actually hurt Bush politically.
Opinion 1:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=drezner042804
Ordinarily, presidents are rewarded for doing their jobs well. In Bush's case, however, quiet in Iraq would allow Americans to focus on their pocketbooks. While the economy--and Bush's approval numbers on the issue--have rebounded from lows, the president remains far weaker on domestic issues than on international affairs ... Bush's best hope for reelection is for the electorate to focus on his leadership abilities--and one way for that to happen is for there to be trouble in Iraq.
Opinion 2, from the always-optimistic Ruy Texeira:
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000481.shtml
What does the public want to do now about Iraq? They're not quite sure. While four months ago they believed by 21 points (56-35) that the US should stay in Iraq as long as necessary to establish a stable democracy, rather than leave as soon as possible, now they are split right down the middle on this (46-46).
Iraq may not be "another Vietnam", in substantive terms. But sentiment about Iraq is starting to look more and more like sentiment about Vietnam. And if you're running for re-election, that ain't good.
I don't know which to believe. It does seem like success in Iraq, though it would be good for Bush, would also have the side effect of taking national security issues out of the public eye for a while, thus forcing Bush to campaign on his thoroughly unimpressive domestic record. Thoughts?