Washington ? As historian Doris Kearns Goodwin pointed out this week on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about presidents visiting the troops during wartime. Lincoln did it several times during the Civil War and FDR managed it during World War II. More recent presidents have shared meals with the military in Korea, Vietnam and Kosovo. So, despite the stealth and drama that marked President Bush’s flight into Baghdad, he was doing what the commander in chief often does, and his visit, brief as it was, clearly cheered the troops. Democrats, properly, refrained from criticizing the trip.

But the absence of controversy does not diminish the political significance of the journey, which dominated television coverage and newspaper headlines over Thanksgiving weekend.

My own view of its importance differs from many of the reactions I have read and heard. It may be politically risky, even some Republicans suggest, because it strengthens the link between Bush and an increasingly uncertain venture in Iraq.

I am skeptical of that argument, because the president is so thoroughly identified with the decision to go to war that he could not shed that label if he wanted to — and there’s no sign that he does. True, Congress and the United Nations played supporting roles in throwing down a challenge to the Iraqi regime. But both were responding to Bush’s initiative, and no one doubts he was the moving force — the will — behind the decision.

Another theory is that the photo of Bush at the mess hall in Baghdad was designed to wipe out memories of his flight onto the deck of the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, where he stood on May 1 under a banner prematurely claiming “Mission Accomplished.” The video clips of that day have become and still remain a symbol of the Bush administration’s hubris and a tip-off to its blind spot — its lack of planning for the postwar problems of Iraq.

Those problems were only momentarily disguised by the excitement of the president’s visit. November was the deadliest month of the year for U.S. casualties, with 79 American dead. In addition, seemingly coordinated attacks have targeted British, Italian, Spanish and Japanese personnel working for the coalition in Iraq.

At the moment, many Americans — probably most — still respond favorably when Bush vows, as he did in Baghdad, not to retreat from “a band of thugs and assassins” but to stay “until the job is done.” That kind of muscular rhetoric still elicits cheers, but it does not offset the negative trends in public opinion. Two things are costing Bush at home: the almost daily casualty reports and the growing uncertainty that the administration really knows what it is doing now that Saddam Hussein is out of power — or has a strategy to accomplish the transition to Iraqi self-rule.

Serious criticism has been heaped on the Bush team over its lack of postwar planning, and the questioning is coming not just from Democrats but from credible Republicans — Sens. Dick Lugar and John McCain, for example. It is no wonder that voters are confused and increasingly skeptical.

As Election Day approaches, Bush will face increasing political pressure to demonstrate that his strategy is working. The eagerly awaited hallmarks of success would be significant cuts in U.S. troop strength in Iraq and/or the creation of a representative Iraqi government. Absent either of those things, Iraq is likely to be a political drag on the president next November.

But the visit to Baghdad and the resulting coverage are reminders of the huge advantage Bush holds as the incumbent over any Democratic challenger. Because he is the head of state, the man who speaks and acts for all Americans in his ceremonial role, he has a claim on the voters’ emotions that no challenger can match. The opportunities for that bond to be strengthened are endless — and as he has demonstrated, notably during the 10 days following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush can rise to the occasion.

The contrast is clear. The Democratic aspirants are debating in serious and sensible terms whether further international help can be obtained in Iraq and whether current troop levels are adequate. They are challenging the administration’s policy judgments. It is all very rational — and appropriate. But none of it packs the emotional wallop of the president’s flying visit to the troops.

By occupying the symbolic heights as commander in chief, Bush puts himself in the catbird seat politically. And the Democrats can’t even complain.

David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.