Posts
If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.
Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.
What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.
I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that "the Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag.'' The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as they want because Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: Unlike Bush and Blair, they've succeeded in making the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war.
That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question. Of course, if Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they'd huff about how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you? At one level, the issue is the same as it was on Sept. 11: American will and national purpose. But the reality is that it's worse than that -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you'd never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.
Bush has been betrayed by a cocky little superannuated Secretary of Defense whose high-handed hijacking of the Iraq reconstruction effort has been an unmitigated serial set of disasters. Gen. Shinseki was right four years ago, but Rumsfeld was wrong then and remains stuck on stupid trying to win a war with an undersized expeditionary force.
Then Rumsfeld compounded his military miscalculation by botching the peace. He replaced Arabic-speaking Gen. Garner and his team of State Dept. Arabists with know-nothing Pentagon apparatchiki led by L. Paul Bremer. Rumsfeld's replacement of Middle East area experts with inside-the-Beltway loyalists was a gigantic miscalculation leading to horrifically bad decisions and chronic mismanagement which in turn has engendered an insurrection now on the verge of becoming a civil war.
What has Bush done? Rewarded Rumsfeld's unprecedented incompetence and chronic bad judgment with continued tenure. The Administration has jettisoned all who question Rumsfeld's track record, including the much more competent Colin Powell. But Bush has been buffaloed by his Vice President and Rumsfeld remains.
Elsewhere today the Wall Street Journal has an article by John Fund which actually portrays Bush as a very intelligent fellow who, like his slogan-prone Poppy, is slightly dyslexic and not very intellectually curious. For an Administration whose main policy decisions have been on foreign policy, GWB's lack of curiosity and deficiencies in expository skills has been disastrous.
Bush detests dissent and listens to contrary views perfunctorily, according to observers, only to become a decider who demands total team loyalty. Perhaps this goes back to his cheerleading past. He remains stuck on loyalty issues. A leader lacking key leadership skills.
Actually, Bush has done a good job on the economy and has attracted very good new team members over the last year: Bolten in the White House, Paulson at Treasury, Snow as WH spokesman. Everyone, including the press, gives GWB high marks in his interpersonal skills with small groups and one-on-one interaction---even with occasional gaffes like giving Chancellor Merkel a backrub.
But nice guy does not cut it when a determined opposition is dead-set to destroy your reputation and take over the reins of government for the last two years of your presidency. Bush must fire Rumsfeld and appoint Powell as Secretary of Defense.
And as Steyn mentioned of the Australian political process, Bush should confront his political detractors with strong language concerning their basic perceptions of America's role in the world. Plus a little questioning of the Democrats' white flag mentality.
Oh yeah, one last thing. 60 Minutes had a good piece on Dutch female parliament member Hirsi last night and her friendship with Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. Van Gogh made a movie which inspired a Muslim terrorist to shoot him while he was riding his bicycle to his film studio. As Van Gogh lay on the ground, he asked the terrorist, "Can't we talk about this?"
The terrorist's answer was brief. He stuck a knife in Van Gogh's chest with a letter to Hirsi saying she was next. Van Gogh died of the stabbing after asking to negotiate.
So much for talk. So much for Democrats' faith in "getting along together." Bush should use graphic examples like this instead of abstract gobbledegook and imprecations to values and steadfast patriotism. Otherwise, he might as well retire to his Crawford digs for the last two years of his presidency.
No comments :
Post a Comment