The time had arrived for President George W. Bush to give a primetime address. America is fast approaching the second anniversary of September 11, and four months have elapsed since his previous national address, when he appeared on the flight deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

The reality on the ground has been increasingly out of sync with that message. There has been an escalation of terrorist attacks, notably against the U.N. and Jordanian embassy in Baghdad, and against Shiite Muslims in Najaf. Congress, the American people, and especially the media are increasingly second-guessing the president.

Given this context, Bush had to address questions hanging over his administration like the sword of Damocles: Just how much progress has the U.S. made in the war on terror? How many troops are needed to bring order to Iraq? At what cost? How does America enlist more allies to share the burden? How does America transfer sovereignty over to Iraqis?

In a 19-minute address televised live from the Cabinet Room, Bush went far to answer these questions. His was a stay-the-course speech. Iraq remains the “central front” in the war on terror. Since terrorist attacks are inspired by a perception of weakness, America must respond vigorously and take the fight to the enemy. In answer to those who would have us cut and run, Bush argued that it would serve the strategic ends of the enemy. That is not an option. To finish the job, more funds are needed. More help from our allies is needed.

Now, behind the address are other questions that cannot be answered now, and certainly not in a 19-minute speech — but are critical to our future, nevertheless.

One is the question of Bush’s electoral health. It is a distinctly political question, and during these late summer days many commentators are trying to make hay of the slow, steady decline in the president’s job-approval rating. CNN reports that Bush is currently at his lowest job-approval rating since taking office. And in yesterday’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd was licking her chops, making gleeful comparisons between the declines of Bush the son and Bush the father. Premature obituaries aside, the president does seem increasingly vulnerable to Democrats’ criticism.

Yet it is important to put the president’s recent job-approval decline in historical perspective. Certainly Bush is in better shape than Ronald Reagan was at a similar point in his presidency. During his first term, Reagan also had to deal with an economic downturn, harsh criticism of his tax cuts, and terrorist attacks in the Middle East. Yet he went on to crush Walter Mondale in 1984.

Bush is also in better shape than the first Republican president at a comparable point in his first term. Indeed, by 1864, Abraham Lincoln was so sullen about his prospects for a second term that he privately confessed, “It seems exceedingly probable that this administration will not be re-elected.” Later that year Lincoln went on to beat George McClellan in one of the most lopsided landslides in American history.

When Bush performed on primetime last night, he took his case directly to the American people, on a great end-run around the media. He instinctively knows that if the people are with him, then the Congress will be with him. Which means that the “central front” in the war on terror — Iraq — will be funded. Which means that the United States will have a better chance to fulfill its mission. Which will translate into better reelection prospects in 2004. That’s the idea, anyway.

Other questions went unaddressed by President Bush either because they cannot be answered or the United States and administration are unwilling to tackle them just now.

For example, the larger context of Iraq is not just the war on terror, but also the Middle East as a whole. Prospects for peace on the West Bank have just been set back by the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Is the American-backed roadmap even realistic at this point? Is there any solution?

Further, the projection of American power abroad always raises the question: Are we to be a republic or an empire? Ever since 1898, America has struggled with the question, but of late it has become especially provocative. The U.S., after all, was founded in opposition to empire. But more than two centuries have passed since the Declaration of Independence’s ringing rejection of the British imperium. As the world’s lone superpower, the possibility — the temptation — to establish and expand a commercial or political or military empire remains.

President Bush did not address these larger questions last night, but they are among the issues with which Americans will have to grapple as we pursue the war on terror and a free and democratic Iraq.

— Gleaves Whitney is director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies in Grand Rapids, Michigan.