War Presents a Paradox for Those Planning 1992 Election Campaigns : Politics: A quick victory would enhance President Bush’s stature. It appears likely that it would also advance the interests of Democrats.

Political professionals are becoming convinced that the Persian Gulf war is having a paradoxical effect on prospects for the 1992 presidential campaign: A quick victory, though it obviously would benefit President Bush, also appears likely to advance the interests of Democrats.

For now, Democrats are having a hard time making themselves heard over the din of battle in the Middle East, and the start of the contest for their presidential nomination has been delayed. A sudden peace would give their potential candidates a chance to focus attention on the economy and other domestic issues central to their drive to regain the White House.

“The quicker this thing is over with, the better off we are in terms of the national interest and our partisan interest,” said Paul Tully, Democratic Party national political director.

“Once the war is over and successful, people will very quickly move on to other things,” said David Keene, a senior adviser to Kansas Sen. Bob Dole’s 1988 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

As for Bush, many believe that the boost in stature he would gain from a victory in the Persian Gulf could turn out to be short-lived, particularly if the economy remains shaky or if other issues work against him.

“If Bush gets the war over with quickly, it does not guarantee his reelection,” said GOP strategist Eddie Mahe. “With 18 months to go before the 1992 election, the war will become history and the election will be about domestic issues.”

Flushed with victory, some Republicans might try to make Democrats pay a political price for their opposition to the use of force in the Gulf. “But the Democrats could answer that by saying we could have gotten the same results without people getting killed, by sticking to sanctions,” said John Mueller, University of Rochester political scientist and author of “War, Presidents and Public Opinion.”

Then, too, Bush may find it harder to win the peace than the war. “When the war is over, the public needs to feel that the world is better off,” said Fred Steeper, who conducts surveys for the Republican National Committee and the White House.

That means the President needs to keep his promise to establish “a new world order,” starting in the Middle East, where he must contend with deep-rooted ethnic, religious and national antagonisms as well as the rivalries and ambitions of individual leaders.

To be sure, Bush’s reelection prospects could suffer if the war drags on at high cost in American lives. But analysts say that it could be many months before a backlash against the war would come to dominate the political scene and increase the Democrats’ chances of regaining the White House.

“It’s not just the passage of time but other factors that will influence the public’s judgment about the war,” said Everett Carll Ladd, executive director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion. Ladd contends that the United States could pursue the desert war for as long as a year and still retain public support, “if people believe it’s well-handled.”

The villainous image projected by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein probably would help Bush retain support during a long war. “This guy is so horrible, I think the American people are going to have a lot of patience with Bush trying to defeat him,” said Bill Carrick, who managed House Democratic leader Richard A. Gephardt’s 1988 presidential campaign.

In the event of a long war, an important factor working in Bush’s favor is that, as commander-in-chief, he has the ability to dictate events to which Democrats must then scramble to react. The President demonstrated the value of that ability last fall when he abruptly ordered a huge buildup in U.S. forces in the Gulf and then prodded the United Nations into setting a deadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

Then, too, Democrats would have difficulty criticizing Bush’s handling of the war because their credibility in this area is not high. “The public puts more trust in Republicans when it comes to national defense and national security,” said Keene, the former Dole adviser.

Meanwhile, with the public still preoccupied with the progress of Operation Desert Storm, Democratic efforts to advocate changes in domestic policy could be submerged by an intraparty debate between supporters and opponents of the war.

The elements of that debate already were evident at a Democratic policy conference in Chantilly, Va., last weekend. Although most party leaders at the session had opposed the use of force, they pledged their support for Operation Desert Storm. Typical was Gephardt, who declared: “The debate is behind us, the battle is upon us and victory is before us.”

The counterpoint was provided by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was applauded loudly when he declared: “Those of us who opposed the rush to war must not now surrender to war” and called on Bush “to stop the bombing and start the talking.”

Of course, the lessons of history demonstrate that any political assessments made at this point are subject to change as a result of twists and turns in the fortunes of war.

When the Korean War broke out in June, 1950, President Harry S. Truman had the support of more than 70% of the American public. Six months later, after China’s intervention in the conflict contributed to heavy U.S. casualties, polls showed that a majority of the public believed the war was a mistake.

In Vietnam, on the other hand, public support for the war did not drop below 50% until 1967, although U.S. forces had been involved in large-scale and generally frustrating combat for more than two years.

Moreover, Bush seems determined to avoid the limited war strategies that robbed both the Korean and Vietnam efforts of public support over the long run. A week after launching the air assault against Baghdad, he declared: “Never again will our armed forces be sent out to do a job with one hand tied behind their back.”