Yesterday’s Iraq hearing told us a lot about what we already know: Iraq is a mess and the “progress” there is uneven at best. But it told us little or nothing about what we don’t know: How do we know when to get out, and, if not now, when?
The questions morally and strategically are: (1) whether our exit would leave the Iraqi’s worse off—and how much extra Iraqi violence and misery would be justified by the decline in death and suffering by U.S. troops? (2) What effect would the departure of U.S. forces have on our “interests” in the Middle East? Both questions are blurred by the desire for “victory” or the fear of “defeat.” It’s not clear now what we stand to win, nor what we might lose.
While these are hard questions, it seems clear that the president has no interest in studying them. Bush is so totally invested in his war—and in his desire not to “lose” it—that he will never change strategy: he will continue with the war, while allowing for the drawdown advocated by Gen. Pretaeus, which, as many have noted, is not a decision but an inevitability. The Democrats, meanwhile, control Congress, but not by enough votes to force the president to change. Thus we have a quagmire—not just in Iraq, but here at home.
Bush, of course, has no credibility on Iraq. To his credit, he has stopped talking about victory, I think, but without acknowledging that his previous course had failed and that his rhetoric was destructive. Still, he now must hide behind the general, who, after all, was selected presumably because he is largely in agreement with the president. (Whether the White House shaped or vetted Petraeus’ testimony is not the point. They chose the man who would give the testimony.) But he does have blocking power.
The only way out is for Bush to resign and leave office now, not waiting until 2009. Cheney, of course, would have to quit, too. The president’s departure would not sole the problem. But it would permit an honest reassessment of what, if anything, we owe the Iraq and what policies are best for us.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Bush: Steadfast, Determined... Oblivious
Dead Certain, Robert Draper’s new book on George W. Bush, portrays the president as a decisionmaker. (See the NY Times review at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/books/05kaku.html?ref=books and the first chapter at http://nytimes.com/2007/09/04/books/05draperfirstchap.html ) Bush would have it that he is steadfast, determined, and an optimist. His detractors call him stubborn. Actually, he is neither. He is something worse: Bush is oblivious.
The book also portrays Bush as a man of big ideas. His determination and optimism are, in his mind, necessary to inspire confidence and, therefore, encourage the robust following of his lead. The conclusion may be correct, but the premise is just silly. Bush’s principal “big idea” is to spread democracy in the Middle East. But there is no evidence he ever had that idea until after 9-11 and his decision to invade Iraq. The idea followed the decision. For leaders (or anyone) truly driven by ideas, the cause and effect works the other way: decisions follow ideas.
As for inspiration through confidence and certainty, there must be something to that. No one can follow a waffler or a plan that even the planner appears not to believe. But any decent leader would calculate based on observed facts and events. This is where Bush goes off the rails. Bush’s certainty fooled a lot of the people for a while, but it has now become apparent.
Bush was certain Iraq had WMDs and was in league with Al Qaeda. The people believed him and followed him to war. He was confident that the war could be won on the cheap because the U.S. would be hailed as liberators. The people believed him, or at least did not question.
Then it all blew up. The occupation force was inadequate to secure the country, looting resulted. There was no planning for insurgency or civil war, even though expert advisers predicted both. As Iraq got worse, Bush failed to reckon with events. He was oblivious to the facts as they were and as they newly appeared. As a result he lost credibility precisely because of his certainty. While he is still in charge, he leads no one.
The book also portrays Bush as a man of big ideas. His determination and optimism are, in his mind, necessary to inspire confidence and, therefore, encourage the robust following of his lead. The conclusion may be correct, but the premise is just silly. Bush’s principal “big idea” is to spread democracy in the Middle East. But there is no evidence he ever had that idea until after 9-11 and his decision to invade Iraq. The idea followed the decision. For leaders (or anyone) truly driven by ideas, the cause and effect works the other way: decisions follow ideas.
As for inspiration through confidence and certainty, there must be something to that. No one can follow a waffler or a plan that even the planner appears not to believe. But any decent leader would calculate based on observed facts and events. This is where Bush goes off the rails. Bush’s certainty fooled a lot of the people for a while, but it has now become apparent.
Bush was certain Iraq had WMDs and was in league with Al Qaeda. The people believed him and followed him to war. He was confident that the war could be won on the cheap because the U.S. would be hailed as liberators. The people believed him, or at least did not question.
Then it all blew up. The occupation force was inadequate to secure the country, looting resulted. There was no planning for insurgency or civil war, even though expert advisers predicted both. As Iraq got worse, Bush failed to reckon with events. He was oblivious to the facts as they were and as they newly appeared. As a result he lost credibility precisely because of his certainty. While he is still in charge, he leads no one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
