Bush’s Strategy/Bush’s political failures
Michael Barone on Bush’ grand strategy, focusing on the NSS document of September 2002:
In other respects, Bush has not delivered on the promises of the NSS. The Free Trade Area of the Americas, envisioned for 2005, is nowhere in sight. And “an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security,” won’t appear soon.
But there is much evidence that Bush has made good on the multilateral diplomacy that the strategy called for. He has let Britain, France and Germany carry on negotiations with Iran; urged China, the only country with real leverage, to use it against North Korea; and worked with France in supporting the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. And America is getting more cooperation from newly elected governments in Germany and Canada.
He makes this prediction, one I agree with, but know will be difficult and rhetorically-hot to execute:
My prediction: Bush’s successors, for all their criticisms (John McCain wants a larger military; Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for military action in Iraq knowing what she knows now), will find it hard to move outside the framework of the National Security Strategy, as they take on Bush’s burden of fighting what we’re starting to call the Long War.
Bill Kristol bewails the Bush administration’s political failures but understands the “long” perspective means continuing to pursue an offensive strategy.
Indeed, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we didn’t have to take the enemies of liberal democracy seriously–a world without jihadists who want to kill and clerics who want to intimidate and tyrants who want to terrorize. It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.
To govern is to choose, and to accept responsibility for one’s choices. To govern is not wishfully to await the end of history. To govern is not fatalistically to watch a clash of civilizations from the sidelines.
As Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council observed last week, “We are in the midst of a jihadist offensive. The bombing of [Iraq’s] Askariya Shiite Shrine is another indication of the world-wide jihadist offensive against the West. From the cartoon jihad to the Hamas victory to the Iranian effort to obtain nuclear weapons to the attempt by al Qaeda to foment an Iraqi civil war–our enemy is taking the initiative. And the West is on its heels.”
The Bush administration leads the West. If the West seems to be on its heels, it is because the administration seems to be on its heels. The fact that the left is utterly irresponsible, and some of the right is silly, is no excuse.
Wittmann continued, “Many mistakes have been made since 9/11. But at the end of the day, we should recognize that we are all Americans and part of the West that is under assault by a truly evil foe. Our bravest are on the front lines in this war. The least we can do at home is to demonstrate some moral seriousness that the moment demands.”
The “Bush political failure” I worry about hasn’t happened yet– but signs of failure abound. What preparation is the administration is the administration making to hand over strategic control of The War on Terror to a subsequent administration? How is the administration preparing to fight a multi-generational, multi-administration war?
I discussed this problem in another Weekly Standard article (July 2005).
UPDATE: Welcome INstapundit readers. I mentioned the NSS of September 2002 in a column written two weeks ago. It is an essential “warfighting” statement. Comments will take three to six hours to appear today. Also, read the comment rules. Accusations of crimes and name-calling violate this site’s rules.
I think I hit upon the same concerns using a different path. Too much confusion on the political scene — particularly from Democrats — sends the wrong message to voters and to outsiders about what is going on in the world. So let’s answer Three simple questions: Are we at war? If so, with whom? And what do you propose to do about it?
Comment by sbw — 2/27/2006 @ 8:19 am
Good commentary. I sincerely believe the war of civilizations will define our generation’s historical legacy for posterity (just as the greatest generations’ was decided by their role in WWII). Like asimov writes in Foundation, events are shaped by the dead hand of socioeconomic forces (a variant of the invisible hand theory for market forces). Demand for war will shootup once the amrket is large enough to sustain the realization that not acting means heavy prices to pay in the future.
Comment by voletti — 2/27/2006 @ 8:45 am
[…] olitics, Middle East/Terrorism at 8:11 am by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton Courtesy of Austin Bay: Michael Barone on Bush’ grand strategy, focusing on the NSS document of September 2002: In other […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Bush’s Strategy/Bush’s political failures — 2/27/2006 @ 10:12 am
Any Port in a Storm Part VI: What We Have Here… …Is a failure to communicate. The great danger for great leaders is making assumptions about your followers. An officer assuming unquestioned obedience from the troops as you charge the machine gun nest can get you killed. A President assuming …
Trackback by Liberty Just In Case — 2/27/2006 @ 10:34 am
I would be a bit more hesitant than Kristol is, simply because this IS a multi-generational conflict that we’re dealing with. Bush and alot of other world leaders are dealing with multiple issues- some of which blindsided them (like the Dubai Ports one, and also the cartoon issue) while they were clearly trying to focus on other issues (Iran, for one). Bush is also waiting for the fallout from the Mid-Term elections in 2006 to see what his path should or shouldn’t be. sbw is right, that there are so few non-Republicans who are in Bush’s fold helping to fight this war, that is a part of the problem. You’ve got liberals like Ted Kennedy and the NYT who want to fight Bush more than to fight terrorism- and whenever Bush tries to push for a new initiative in the GWOT the liberals essentially carry on and whine, without any real policy concepts or counterproposals. And then you’ve got the old-school right wing- the William F. Buckleys’ of the world, who have such narrow concepts of the modern world- fight only to protect America, and the moment America’s safe, pull out of the world’s problems like an ungrateful child. And on top of this, is the fact that most of the mainstream media doesn’t know what to do about the GWOT- they’re mostly antagonistic towards anything Bush says. As a result, you have what effectively amounts to a 5th column in the US trying to undermine the war effort. This largely puts Bush in a vacuum as far as his political leadership goes. He’s issuing orders and expounding ideas, but there are alot of people who just aren’t listening. His political leadership is thus diluted as a result of the petty bickering that’s going on. It will probably take another 9/11- or worse- for these people to finally get their act in gear.
Comment by Fafhrd — 2/27/2006 @ 12:04 pm
Mr. Bay - First, I admire your efforts and your work, and respect your views. Bill Kristol certainly has a point re the opposition and the bottom line - that the Bush admin is in charge and that if the West is rocking on its heels they have to accept responsibility. But here’s where I’d appreciate your thoughts. Back in 04 I wondered if a President Kerry wouldn’t have been a (very well) disguised blessing. Once the Dems have to seriously confront the Long War, might they not sober up, along with their inane media water carriers? Wittmann is, of course, right, but his is a voice in the wilderness. I think the west will win this war, but at a much higher cost than is necessary, and largely because we remain confounded by our multi-culti PC mindset. Dems in charge - whether in Conress, the White House or both - might be the solution. I think Kristol goes to far in assigning responsibility to the Bush admin. The captain of the ship can do nothing if everyone else on board is intent upon sinking the ship, or, at the very least, pretending that the looming iceberg is a an illusion.
Comment by Mike — 2/27/2006 @ 1:33 pm
I’m not ready to believe that Al Quaeda was responsible for the mosque bombing in the absence of evidence. All I’ve heard is that men in Iraqi security uniforms planted the bombs. If not Iraqi, they would have to at least LOOK Iraqi. Might a faction inside Iraq believe they could get an advantage from it? The interior ministry’s forces are full of various militia members, so the act is doable by many. I’m curious why pro-Iran mullah Sadr was out of the country when it happened.
Comment by Lorenzo — 2/27/2006 @ 2:17 pm
I’ve always thought it the acme of gullibility to assume the 9/02 NSS was anything more than a response to a [erceived public relations emergency calling for the announcement of a post-Afghanistan, pre-Iraq strategy. Michael Barone is not the guy who will change my mind.
Comment by Zathras — 2/27/2006 @ 6:08 pm
Despite reasonable speeches, Bush is failing at PR. His admin must do better if he wants to help Reps win in 2006. You’re absolutely right that the NSS will be relevant for the next few Presidents.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 2/27/2006 @ 6:20 pm
Colonel Bay, The problem with an open-ended struggle of indefinite duration is that it risks our efforts becoming hostage to short-term events. Stephen Biddle’s current article in Foreign Affairs went to press before the recent Golden Dome bombing but his argument seems to have been vindicated in every detail. He bravely asserts at the end that we can still achieve an acceptable outcome in Iraq by stopping the indigenization of Iraq’s army and police until a political compromise has been achieved between the three major groups in that country. But the recent poll of US troops in Iraq showing that 72 percent favor withdrawal by year’s end (and on the veracity of that poll I would be very grateful if you would please comment) does not bode well for a reassertion of US authority and commitment on the open-ended basis that Biddle says is necessary.
Comment by David Billington — 2/28/2006 @ 3:46 pm
At one time I thought that it would take another 9/11 (or several of them) to shock the country back to sense. Now I doubt that even a 9/11-style disaster per week would do anything beyond increase the already staggering body count. The Democratic Party and the MSM have allied themselves with Islamofascists in their holy war against Bush and the Republicans. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. But the alliance between the Far Left and Islamofascism is only temporary. Should Democrats take control of the Presidency and Congress in 2008, I predict that you would see a different type of war against Islamofascism - one based upon “soft power”, secret wars, assassination of world leaders and suspected terrorists. The key word here would be “quiet” - meaning that Democrats would declare the war against terrorism won and publicly concentrate upon bringing Europe-style welfare stateism to the USA while fighting Islamofascism behind the scenes. In a war between Democrats and Islamofascists, my money would be on the guys with the Korans in their hands, bombs strapped to their chests, and hatred blazing from their eyes. Democrats are just plain crazy - and that’s not enough to win a card game, let alone a war.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 2/28/2006 @ 8:37 pm