Andrew Sullivan writes:

NOW WIN THE WAR: I’ve been reading with some disbelief all sorts of proposals for president Bush’s next two years. Here’s the only one that matters: win the war. If we can rid the world of Saddam Hussein and see Iran’s dictators pushed to the brink, then an entirely new set of circumstances prevails in the world. What the president needs to focus on now is disarming Saddam. This election wasn’t a mandate for tax simplification or welfare reform (however important those two things are). It was a vote of support for victory. If Bush lets Saddam wriggle through the gaping U.N. net, and lets al Qaeda off the hook, then he will deserve to be defeated in 2004. Getting the war right is paramount. Everything else will follow. Nothing else, in comparison, matters.

Now, I assume the reference to “tax simplification” was a reference to my column from Wednesday. And I should say that I largely agree with Andrew’s point. Winning the war has to be the top priority (and I should have been more clear about that in my column). And, yes, if it comes down to a choice between winning the war or losing a specific domestic policy, I think the war has to come first. That said, I think this is something of a fale choice. If Bush defines his role solely as Commander in Chief for the next two years he will become less effectual in both foreign and domestic policy. He will also risk losing office and giving the keys of power to the forces of Mordor, which would be disastrous. If this election taught us anything it is that you’ve got to spend political capital to make political capital. His father ignored this lesson emphasizing only foreign policy and left the Clinton administration in charge of Iraq and al-Quaeda for the next decade. We can’t afford to do that sort of thing again. That means Bush must have a domestic agenda — and a good one. Otherwise he will risk losing support from many needed constituencies.