Dreams Are Not Enough
Over the weekend, Duffy wrote an impassioned response to my post on the futility of our Iraq policy (“View from the Right”) in which he said:
…you have mistaken the difference and the importance of strategic objectives vs. the tactics used to achieve the objectives(basically the difference between the scientist and the visonary). Unfortunately, for Bush, his questionable tactics may lead to unresolved results in the short term(November), but the ultimate goal, if he has the fortitude to see it through or is allowed to see it through by the electorate, will dramatically change the world for the better. Thank God he had the guts, or the stupidity, to try it. For other examples, think Martin Luther, Lincoln, FDR, Truman(A-bomb), Kennedy(Missile Crisis), Reagan(Arms Race). All used questionable tactics to change the world, for the better.
It breaks my heart to have to refute these kinds of arguments, because I sympathize deeply with the idealism that underlies them. I believe there is much we can accomplish to make the world a better place, and that it’s important to be guided by a larger vision that sees past the challenges of the present moment to a brighter future. I even agree with the fundamental assertion of Bush’s Middle East policy, which is that the root cause of terrorism is in the pathological politics and sociology of repressive Arab societies, and until they become freer, we will continue to be under threat from one stripe of fanatic or another. Encouraging the liberalization of the Middle East is in the urgent self-interest of the United States and the West, and half-measures are no longer sufficient.
This is all fine as far as it goes, and Bush is right to understand it in these terms. But understanding the problem in its simplest, highest-level dimension is not enough in this case. It is by no means self-evident how you get from a holistic, sociological view of Islamist violence to the policy conclusion of staging an invasion of Iraq. Bush and his apologists seem to believe that there is some kind of necessary connection here – that there was simply no other way to go about addressing the problems of the Arab world short of a frontal military assault, and this logic therefore justifies all the enormous disruptions that have resulted, despite their calamitous impact on America’s standing, freedom, finances, morale and future capabilities.
Bush continues to argue that we somehow had no choice about Iraq, that circumstances beyond anyone’s control created the situation we now face there. “The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect,” said Bush in his speech last night, as if Saddam’s removal happened in a way that no one could have predicted. But of course, it was Bush’s own decision to reject caution, reject patience, reject alliances, reject the kind of prudent planning that would have helped increase the chances of success of an extremely risky undertaking. He had a vision of a better Middle East, but lacked – and continues to lack – the temperament and basic competence to follow it through to success.
In his note, Duffy cites a list of notable leaders who made tough decisions against stiff opposition and criticism. But everyone on his list was a doer as well as a dreamer. None shirked the hard work of seeing their policies through to successful completion, or shrank from the intellectual rigor of working through the ethics and practicalities before reaching their difficult choice. Their willingness to examine their choices, explain their reasoning, define their priorities ahead of time, and accept accountability afterwards gave their decisions a greater weight than snap judgments made by intuition or reference to ideology.
Bush could not be bothered with any of that. His arguments were and remain shallow and strident. He treats his listeners like children, and his critics like enemies. There is no flexibility to his vision and no humility to his deliberative process. None of this would matter if his instincts were unerringly good, but it turns out now that in almost every instance, he was wrong and his critics were right. Bad luck? Not exactly. There’s an increasing body of evidence to show a direct connection between Bush’s impatience with detail and debate and his predilection for making decisions with disastrous consequences.
It’s important to have hopes and ideals, but there comes a point when you have to ask yourself if the repeated real-world failure of a strategy is the result of circumstance or something bigger. Idealistic Communists will tell you that Marx never envisioned the gulags or the excesses of Stalin; Marx was about improving the quality of life for exploited workers and creating a paradise where the state withers away, abundance and freedom reign. Despite the grizzly record of Communist states in the 20th century, true believers to this day will tell you that Communism didn’t fail because “real Communism” was never tried. It was betrayed in its execution by cruel and ambitious men (a “tactical failure”), its utopian vision foiled by unscrupulous enemies.
Well, all that may be, but there may be a very good reason we’ve never seen “real” Communism in all its promised glory. In the end, there was no way to separate the “tactical” failures from the more profound weakness of the ideology as a whole. One could say that the atrocities of Stalin and Mao were a predictable result of an idealist vision that required flawed humans to become angels, and the institutions of human society to work against the impulses of human nature. There was nothing unworthy in Marx’s vision of a better society. The danger lay in the gap between what Marx promised and what needed to be done to make his vision real.
Is Bush’s vision of a free and democratic Middle East a dangerous flight of fancy? Not necessarily, although it is in extreme opposition to the tide of history and culture in the region. However, the very difficulty and ambition of the task require those who would undertake it to proceed with the utmost skill, knowledge and competence. Yet rather than arm himself with the best information, the strongest alliances, the broadest domestic consensus, Bush has chosen in every case to put his head down and plow forward as though he had no need to heed any earthly authority. That, his supporters claim, is the nature of his leadership.
Sorry, but such behavior when the stakes are so high isn't leaderhip: it's idiotic and insane. Worse, it’s prone to failure. With every poor decision, every misstep based on conspicuously flawed intelligence or deluded assumption, every bald-faced lie to conceal a mistake, every chain-of-command failure where no one is held accountable, Bush pushes his vision farther from his reach and drags American power and esteem deeper into the dirt. Eventually, we will lose whatever chance we had to do good and find ourselves in the position that the Communists were in when their God failed: inheritors of a bankrupt vision, whose high ideals have turned to dust in imperfect hands.
Duffy believes in the vision and writes, “Thank God [Bush] had the guts, or the stupidity, to try it.” Well I don’t fault Bush for his guts or his vision. But if you’re going to dream big, you need mad skills to pull it off. That's what FDR and Lincoln and the others had; it's what Bush so obviously lacks. Because a dreamer without skills is just a reckless gambler with a big mouth, and if he's the leader of a country, he's something much much worse.
8:28:17 PM 
|
|
