Waiting for Grandpa Jim

WASHINGTON - Commenting on relations between the United States and Iraq, James Baker said: "I see a possibility for improvement, and we would like to encourage this possibility." That was in 1990. Baker was then secretary of state in the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush. A few weeks later, Iraq invaded its neighbor Kuwait. Baker was dispatched to put together a coalition that would emerge victorious in the first Gulf War - and he deserves full credit for putting together that coalition. But it is doubtful whether that coalition would ever have sent its troops to war, if the final decision had been up to Baker.

A few years earlier, a post that he wanted - that of national security adviser in Ronald Reagan's administration - had been denied him. The president had promised, but then changed his mind, pressured by hawks in his administration. They argued that the appointment of a "deal-maker" like Baker would project a message of weakness and accommodation to the world. Reagan gave in and made a compromise appointment, in the form of Robert McFarlane. In return, he received the Iran-Contra scandal, which clouded his second term in office. Such a scandal would not have happened under Baker.

The second President George Bush is battered and bruised, just like Reagan was, and perhaps even more so. The Weekly Standard, in a cover story this week on Bush's sixth year in office - a cursed year for all presidents, from Roosevelt to Clinton - noted that "Landslide," a book by Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus on Reagan, devoted "393 pages to the claim that Iran-Contra had destroyed Reagan's career and his legacy."

An excellent book - but its conclusion is wrong. Other, similar books now being published in the U.S. deal with the failures of the current administration, and it is possible to learn a lot of fascinating details from them about the ways of decision makers. But from this book, a different lesson should be learned: Books that are written too soon may err in judging Bush's legacy by evaluating only his intermediate achievements. Bush could still turn out to be a Reagan or a Truman, rather than a Johnson or a Nixon. All of them had terrible sixth years, but some pulled out of the slump and preserved their legacies.

In an ironic twist, the rope that could save Bush will be provided by an old acquaintance, Jim Baker. The man who was kept out of Bush's 2000 election campaign because of claims that he was partly responsible for Bush Senior's loss to Bill Clinton - but who stepped up at the crucial moment to provide the key to victory in the legal battle over the vote count in Florida - has been called up to serve once more. In any case, this will surely provide new fodder for those preoccupied with psychological analyses of the father-son relationship, the administrations of Bush Senior and Bush Junior.

On Tuesday, for example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to say that she "believed" Bush Senior, who has denied a quotation that appears in the latest blockbuster on the administration by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Bush Senior was quoted as saying of Rice: "Condi is a disappointment, isn't she? She's not up to the job."

But regardless of these issues, Baker is co-chairman of a bipartisan advisory panel that is meant to provide new, fresh solutions to Bush's biggest problem: Iraq. A lot depends on this panel. A lot depends on the way that Baker presents its conclusions.

This will happen only after the elections - after Bush suffers yet another blow, or two. In recent days, there have been growing indications that the Democrats have a chance to capture the Senate, and not only the House of Representatives. It is a tough time for Bush, but this has its advantages. He is in the final stretch of his term of office. And Baker will show up with recommendation on what needs to be done in Iraq. And Bush, surely, will carry out his recommendations.

Meanwhile, the long shadow of the Baker panel looms over the Iraqi government like a whip. "You had better get your act together, and quickly," is the message the administration is sending to the Iraqi government, in every way possible. Two to three months, that is the time it has left. Otherwise, Grandpa Jim will step in, and who knows what his recommended plan of action will be? "The Iraqi people," Rice said on Tuesday, "are going to run out of patience with them [Iraq's leaders] if they don't solve their problems."

There are not many possibilities: hunkering down behind fortifications; pulling out, either quickly or gradually; setting up a less ideal but more stable regime; dividing Iraq along ethnic lines. The latter is the solution on which many pundits are betting, but Baker has been quick to deny that this is his intention. Dividing Iraq would result in civil war, he said. It is therefore hard to believe that he will pull a magical solution out of his hat. Baker is no magician; he is a lawyer. And his client, Bush, will benefit from his good services: an image of dignity, international legitimacy and cool professionalism. There you have it, the modern battlefield in all its glory: The military leader, with the general to his right and the lawyer to his left, can carry on with the policy that he has charted to date - namely, staying the course in Iraq.