The Next Steps Jan 16

Presidential legacies begin forming from the first day on the job

On New Years Day, the new mayor of Indianapolis, former Marine Greg Ballard, whose "grassroots" campaign scored the greatest upset in city history, had his inauguration in the Indiana War Memorial, where I happen to work.

A little over a year later, the new American President will do the same on the steps of the US Capitol Building. He or she will have quick work to do to keep America on its course in the fight against Global Jihad---or depending upon the winner, to "repair America's tarnished image in the world." And whether they like it or not, such policies will not only affect President Bush's legacy, but begin to pen marks on their own. It's an important time, and the derisive comments about the former President will have to take a back seat to "moving forward" here and abroad.

Folks have already gone to their caucuses and polls in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan, and will soon do so in the key states of Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. Within days the presidential field will mercifully be cut at least in half; within 40 days we'll possibly know the final two nominees. In an election cycle unmatched in length, historical significance, and unparalleled in its effect upon the future safety of America, gleeful Americans will finally break free of the constant news cycle, faux debates and planted questions. A year of campaigning---or for some, a lifetime---will have finally ended.

But the new Commander in Chief will undoubtedly have big shoes to fill. The Bush Doctrine and the outgoing president's ultimate legacy will be affected greatly by the new Head of State. Their legacy begins, as all others have, with the remnants of their predecessor. But they will soon choose their own path. If history is a guide, and it nearly always is, the new president won't desire the Iraq portion of the War on Terror to be part of his or her tenure. The Iraqis may want us to remain, and we may be sueeding, but for better or worse, this is George Bush's war, and no other executive's---be they Democrat, Republican, ardent critic and obstinate supporter.

So while the party of the leader in power, and surely his or her personal ideology, will no doubt decide the speed at which change will our, one need only look back half a century for an eerily direct analogy.

Before the post 1960s era of citizen impatience and media acquiescence to such immaturity reared its head in Vietnam and now Iraq, there was a two-year warning---a stalemate in Korea, which overlapped two presidencies.

President Harry S. Truman was moderate, hawkish and from Middle America, with a foreign policy ideology no 2008 candidate from his party would recognize, much less invoke. This Democrat began the four-decade Cold War versus Communism by assigning troops---many of whom were just recovering from World War II's toll---to Korea, without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress. Imagine that.

"Truman's War," as some called it, was led by Second World War Hero and General of the Armies, Douglas MacArthur. Though controversial, and with a rapid escalation akin to what we saw later in Vietnam, the American public was solidly behind the intervention. Within one year, that overused euphemism "stalemate" was tossed around the papers, and after another year, the war suddenly was now also deemed a "conflict" or simply a "police action."

As such was the furor of the situation, and a national focus into the "corruption" within the Truman Administration became the rallying cry of his detractors, the noble Truman, with approval ratings in the 20s and calls from his impeachment---especially after he relieved the popular MacArthur of his commanding duties---did not seek re-election. If the aforementioned does not resemble soundbytes from your nightly newscast or the USA Today, ponder this tidbit:

In 1952, Harry Truman saw his approval rating fall to a mere 22 percent after his administration became mired in the Korean War. Day after day