Thomas Friedman recently provided an analysis of President Bush's war and reelection campaigns according to the notion of the Powell Doctrine (Hit 'em hard enough to win easily and decisively) and the Rumsfeld Doctrine (Hit 'em with just enough force for us to lose). According to Friedman, the Powell Doctrine was forgone in Iraq in favor of Rumsfeld flawed ideas but is effectively being wrought against John Kerry in the reelection campaign. If only Bush had gone after anti-American forces in Iraq as voraciously as he's attacking Kerry, Friedman suggests, we might have a different situation on the ground there.
Bush's campaign plans combined with the dismal state of his war plans are combining into a domestic situation with such appallingly serious international implications that I can't believe what I'm about to say isn't the main speaking point on all the political talk shows (eh, it probably is and I'm just out of the loop). People in the United States are uneqivocably split over the war in Iraq and the general response to the threat of terrorism. This split is exacerbated by the admittedly inherent tendency for political campaigns to split the electorate. (That being said, it does seem that the era of centrist politics that Bill Clinton ushered in and GWBush ran on in his first term is dead.)
Bush, Kerry, and the American population in general is failing to distinguish the domestic and foreign situations and the result is that we are divided from inside out. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Ponder: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Iraq is a mess. The president failed to adequately prepare for the aftermath of the war and his conduct in the pre and actual war phases alienated (some say isolated, or even freed) us from allies who would otherwise help. Sympathy and support against Al Qaida from around the world has been squandered and since evaporated. The status quo is not on a trajectory for success. Even if elections are held in Iraq next January, there is little reason to be optimistic that they will help the situation. What is most likely is that either portions of the country will not be stable enough to conduct voting in (thus nullifying the nation-wide effectiveness and legitimacy of a vote) or the best organized parties (namely the insurgency and anti-American or Islamist groups) will win. I suppose there is a subset option to the latter scenario whereby the U.S./Interim Iraqi Government bans or blocks particular parties from running. But even granting this third option, we are left with pretty crappy post-election options.
So Iraq isn't going to be getting better any time soon, but that is simply untenable. It is as dangerous now as the bedsore that ultimately led to the unfortunate death of Christopher Reeve; it's bad, but it is going to lead to wider infection and perhaps eventually total systemic failure.
So what to make of all of this? I'd have to say that as far as the so-called war on terror is going, if we look at what our goals and what Osama Bin Laden's goals are, we aren't winning the overall strategic game. Osama wanted to destroy us, reducing our power, influence, hegemony, and effectiveness. (He has wider goals for control of Saudi Arabia, but I've digressed all over the place enough for today.) We've scored some tactical victories that have resulted in personnel losses for Team Qaeda, but they are closer to their goal than we are. It is an ideological war and they've got the momentum.
He wants us weak, fractured, ineffective, unfocused, and eventually irrelevant. We aren't close to the irrelevancy yet, but we aren't on course to avoid it either.
American effectiveness is weak right now. We have incredible capabilities and capacities that we simply are not able to use or rely on right now. Our leadership has failed us. We aren't winning hearts and minds: we are actually converting them to the enemy's side!
I'm not really all the optimistic that John Kerry is going to do much better. He would likely end up being too afraid to chart his own course and end up doing what his critics demand in order to placate criticism and deny them the opportunity to paint him in a worst case scenario. We need leadership with a much wider vision of the challenges facing us. We need an electorate willing to work together when needed. Coming together behind flawed policy isn't the right way either. We need leadership that truly understands the nature of the threat and what needs to be done to fix it.
PS: Go check out the Friedman column I linked at the beginning here, especially the comments at the end. Ha! Post your comments here.
Posted by Nutrimentia at October 13, 2004 06:38 PM | TrackBack