What now?: the necessity of leadership
Michael Barone is one who doesn’t see Bush’s promise to persevere in Iraq as a joke and/or a travesty and/or an outrage.
Neither does John McCain, who disagrees with the details of Bush’s policy, but sees “staying the course” with more troops as both morally and tactically necessary, not fewer. When does McCain think we should leave Iraq?:
When I think we’ve exhausted every possibility to do what is necessary to succeed and not until then, because the consequences of failure are catastrophic. . . . We left Vietnam, it was over, we just had to heal the wounds of war. We leave this place, chaos in the region and they’ll follow us home. So there’s a great deal more at stake here in this conflict in my view.
And me? I’ve never written on the issue of more troops or less, because that subject seems to require a specialized sort of knowledge that I don’t have. I simply note that those with that knowledge have always differed widely on the question.
But I will state the following: right from the start, although I wasn’t writing a blog at the time, I was very disturbed by the hands-off attitude of those in charge of the occupation. I say “occupation” because that’s what it always was, or should have been. We defeated Iraq in war–although, granted, it was a short war their armed forces mainly chose not to fight. Afterwards, it was our duty to the Iraqis, as well as in our own interests, to be effective in reconstructing a country that had been shattered–not by our war, but by the preceding decades of horror, murder, and divisive brutality, and by a lack of any recent tradition of democracy or cooperation in that country.
The failure to shoot looters at the outset was a bad sign of an approach that was unrealistic on our part about the possibility of resultant chaos. It’s a bit like the first day of school, when a class takes the measure of a teacher, who has to establish his/her authority at the outset or be forever considered a wimp and possible victim. We didn’t want to be a heavy occupying force, and I understood that, but we had to acknowledge that we were there to control things for a while, and that message was not properly delivered. Another turning point–and a far more important one–was our failure to apply Draconian measures to al Sadr when he was just getting started, as well as our initial stalling in Fallujah and other similar areas of enemy control and influence.
You can’t go back–you can only go forward. At this point, I’m with Barone in looking at historical examples of war leadership when things looked dismal:
…remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent. Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat — a nuclear attack — that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to get the communists to agree to a truce.
But Truman’s perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval — much lower than Bush’s — was essential in preserving the independence of South Korea, which now has the world’s 14th-largest economy. Churchill, facing Hitler alone, could promise only “blood, toil, tears and sweat” until his enemies’ mistakes — Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor — gave him the allies that made victory possible…
Bush isn’t Churchill in the leadership/rhetoric department, not by a longshot. But then, who is? If we wait around for a Churchill, there’ll be a long wait coming.
Is Bush a Truman? Closer, perhaps–Truman was no orator, and his intelligence wasn’t highly respected. One difference, of course, was that Truman was not operating under the handicap of constant Vietnam comparisons.
Leadership is hard to quantify, difficult to describe. But we know it when we see it. Right now it’s necessary, although Bush, unfortunately, isn’t a natural at conveying it. But in the future, as in the past, actions will speak louder than words–although words are definitely an important part of the way a leader inspires.
No president in my memory has had to contend with as much relentless negativity from both the press and the opposition party that President Bush has. It has made his job immeasurably more difficult than it needed to be, and has muddled the options for dealing with the question of Iraq and the entire ME. In my opinion, the opposition to the “Iraq adventure” has been based more on political backbiting than on legitimate debate about options.
Had the opposition not been so vocal, strident and (IMO) misguided, I believe that our response to Syria and Iran would have been much more forceful. But with public opinion being shaped by bogus “news”, agenda-driven “journalism”, and political hackery of a nearly treasonous sort, I think that America’s will to persevere in the necessary hard slog has been severely handicapped, and the administration’s hands tied.
I wonder who will be around to accept the blame when we pull out like so many want us to…and the whole situation goes south.
I think a key element to keep in mind is that Bush cannot really do just whatever he wants to do at this point. Congress balances him out, and second, he has “lost his political base” among the American people, either for “staying the course”, amping up the struggle, or “more troops.”
I am pleased to see that many are calling for more troops, but apparently there aren’t any more to be had. John McCain’s support DEPENDS on more troops (BTW, if I read George Will correctly, the Senator’s son just lost both legs in Iraq.)
The article you cite also contains this paragraph:
Historian Arthur Herman in this month’s Commentary calls for airstrikes not only on Iran’s nuclear facilities but also on its ports and refineries; Iran depends on imports for its gasoline, and without ports and refineries, its economy and military would grind to a halt.
That’s a move that might be condemned by the “international community,” and it risks antagonizing the people of Iran, many of whom tend to hate the mullahs and admire America. But it also might destabilize the regime and dislodge a president who has threatened the destruction of Israel and America. Who today regrets Israel’s strike against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981?
Yeah, fine, whatever. But does anyone really believe that the American people or Congress will sign off on that?
“But does anyone really believe that the American people or Congress will sign off on that?”
Exactly what I meant when I said that the administration’s hands were tied…and they have been tied since shortly after 9/11, as Neo’s post above this one explains.
“Afterwards, it was our duty to the Iraqis, as well as in our own interests, to be effective in reconstructing a country that had been shattered–not by our war, but by the preceding decades of horror, murder, and divisive brutality, and by a lack of any recent tradition of democracy or cooperation in that country.”
Err, no – the country was shattered(both the infrastructure and the order under a tightly controlled state) by the U.S wars – most definitely.
And the U.S has handed out it’s own brand of horrors in Abu Gharib and amongst the Iraqi civilian population Fullujha etc- we certainly wouldn’t want to ignore that reality…
US policy has turned a bad country into a total nightmare. How many more deaths does this staying the course entail?
It is too bad that not too many people share your gracious humility, Neo.
I won’t act like steve with the “I told you so” act. Maybe because I’m more interested in how many terrorists can be terrorized and killed in the now and the future, rather than becoming fixated on past opportunities.
Whatever I may have recommended or whatever people were talking about in 2003, no longer applies. Because the situation has changed. There are no looters to shoot, and Sadr has now become a much bigger problem than just arresting him, executing him, and hanging his body on top of a Sunni mosque via US helicopter can solve. Fine, you adapt with the situation, go with the blows. It’s how you win a fight and a war. Adapt and overcome, or sit down and die. There are always options in war. Where there is a will, there is a way.
If Bush does what I recommend, which is to send US forces across Syrian and Iranian borders to take and hold a small, very very small, border town and construct Green Zone defenses and bunkers around it, this would help Maliki out a lot with the internal Iraqi problems.
Too many people have become tunnel visioned into the “my way or the highway” game where they have to, just Have To, get their pet theories implemented. It is the wrong way to look at things. For either the Left or the Right. Bush is not going to go Colonial on Maliki, and having recognized the futility of arguing with a brick, I simply try to bypass Bush’s stubborness by taking what his goal is and adapting my strategy to help Bush’s goal to stabilize Iraq. I am obviously not in favor of stabilizing Iraq so much as using it as a training and logistics base to get Iraqi shock troops that we will then use to purge the Middle East using Imperial logistical constructs.
Bush thought the Democrats, Chirac, and the CIA/State was actually helping him get his policies working. So he treated his enemies as friends, and his friends as enemies. Not only insane, but the results are pretty predictable as well, as you can see. This is demonstrated by Bush not overriding the Governor of L and just sending National Guard and telling people to evacuate.
Bush doesn’t like being a bully, but a war leader must both be ruthless towards enemies and honorable towards allies. Bush believes too many enemies and obstructions, are allies. Which hurts his real allies, when he is soft on their enemies. Soft on the UN, soft on the media, soft on the Democrats, soft on the Governor of L, soft on Syria, soft on Iran, soft on Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on.
You may be thinking, what about right after 9/11? Well, what you saw was the American military might unleashed. The ruthless effectiveness of the Special Forces in Afghanistan were unparalleled. President Bush benefited much, in terms of image, by the sheer destructiveness and killing ability of the United States military. Now, he has chained the only ally he had in government. The US military, by putting them in Iraq,
xxThe US military, by putting them in Iraq, and then just not moving at all. So his enemies converge, crush and constrict Bush’s sole loyal member of the government. The US military. Hemmed in, bogged down, not allowed to unleash their full power because of “Iraqi sovereignty”. Bush has cut himself off from all the power sources of the Presidency. He is committing virtual suicide and taking this country down with him in despair. His problem is not that Bush doesn’t care, Bush’s problem is that he cares too much. The absolute hatred and rage that is required to do the things that must be done, has dissipated, and so has Bush’s momentum. Bush had power when he was enraged and allowed the rage of the military to carry themselves through to victory. Now he talks about peace. Peace is for the dieing, not the living, Mr. President.
Why aren’t you part of the hundred thousand innocent people killed, Justa? Are you just not a “person” or not “innocent”?
Just cause you brained some basher over the head to steal his PS3, doesn’t mean I have a playstation.
://www.commondreams.org/views06/1129-22.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1129-22.htm
I dunno about shooting looters. In theory, I’m for it.
But you know that we’d be pilloried for shooting a couple of impoverished Iraqis who were only trying to…..stave off starvation by stealing color television sets.
“Killing people to defend a furniture store?!”
Nope.
Those who claim we should have come down on the looters were hoping we would so as to have more dead Iraqis to use against the war effort. They regret we didn’t, but not because of the shopowners bankrupted.
And now it seems even Rumsfeld thought ‘staying the course’ was a bad idea.
I guess it’s just you, Bush, and his dog left, Neo.
Neo, you can gauge how well you are doing by how much the “Loyal Left” is gloating. If they are screaming Imperialism and we need to stop, stop, stop with the killing, you know you are doing it right.
Yes, that makes sense. When the architect of this war you supported admits it’s going badly and enormous changes are neeeded, you must be winning.
Ok, 9/11 happened, you lost your mind and now you blog. You have my sympathies.
If Bush had paid attention to my enormous changes and the views of other Jacksonians, the war would be over by now.
Link
One thing that is important is to understand who Iran’s enemies are, and funding those enemies with weapons and money.
You might be interested in this overview of Rumsfield, Neo. It takes a different view than what you would most likely see in popular culture.
Link