Bush looking to raise his profile as a `visible' leader

The US is an early-to-rise country, but Americans are not accustomed to seeing their president on the TV screen just after seven in the morning, Washington time.

When George Bush spoke at breakfast-time Tuesday, ostensibly to the Warsaw Conference, it was not just a response to the time difference with Europe, it was a signal to his compatriots of a new phase in his own role in the war: a phase of renewed public profile and apparent vigor. It does not necessarily mean a more hands-on approach to the war's strategy.

Since the bombing of Afghanistan began a month ago, President Bush has slipped from public consciousness. Sometimes, he has hardly been more visible than Vice-President Dick Cheney, tucked away in his "secure location." There have been brief clips of the president on the evening news, but mostly he has either reiterated old lines quickly or talked about education and jobs.

His highest profile appearance was ceremonially throwing a baseball. Except for insisting that he was infection-free himself, he has said next to nothing about anthrax.

The most visible faces of the administration have been Tom Ridge, the new recruit in charge of homeland security, and Donald Rumsfeld, the oldest of old hands at defense. There have even been more sightings of a man called Potter, the postmaster general.

The indications are that this has been a reflection of private disengagement too. It has never been a secret that Bush is not a micro-manager. But once the strategy was ordained, the execution of the war has been left, to a remarkable extent, in the hands of the military. Though the defense secretary has been doing the up-front explaining, sources suggest that the crucial operational decisions have been made at least two levels below him.

"This has begun to look like Tommy Franks's war rather than Don Rumsfeld's, never mind George Bush's," one diplomat said Tuesday, referring to the war's US commander, General Franks.

Little discontent has yet fed through to the American people, partly because the mainstream US media have done little to reflect the sense of unease that exists elsewhere about the methodology and the effectiveness of the war. The president's ratings have hardly dropped from the near-unanimous highs of late September.

And the president's low profile has helped him to evade the blame for the areas that are beginning to alarm people: the scattergun warnings about potential new terrorist attacks; the uneven treatment of those endangered by anthrax; the continuing blithering incompetence in the airline security business.

This seems to have been deliberate policy. Ryan Lizza, a writer for the New Republic magazine, contrasted the Clinton White House, in which the president was habitually engaged -- and was seen to be engaged -- in every daily issue, with the Bush team's approach of working out in advance what the president should see and do, never mind the pressure of events. "Problem is, at a time of overwhelmingly bad news, they've decided he's a good-news guy."

In the next week, when President Bush faces Tony Blair, the US TV audience, the UN and Vladimir Putin in quick succession, it will be impossible to keep him away from what happens, whether the news is good or bad. The political -- as well as military -- strategists will be holding their breath, more than ever. It will be the wrong week for bad news.