DreamThrall
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,483
- Reaction score
- 0
Posted as published in Newsweek
In a recent letter to a Civil War historian, President Bush wrote, 'Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course. I will do the same'
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Feb. 14 issue - Last week's elections were a great day for Iraq, for the Middle East, for America and for one American in particular. George W. Bush rightly deserves credit for these elections and what they symbolize. Many have argued that the events vindicate Bush's steadfast, unwavering, even stubborn style of leadership. But do they? The Iraqi elections occurred because George Bush changed course, junked a previous plan and adapted to realities on the ground. In fact, much of the progress in Iraq over the past eight months can be traced to Bush's willingness to reverse himself. The enduring problems in Iraq, on the other hand, developed and grew because his administration doggedly refused to recognize errors and make changes. This is more than a point of historical interest. Going forward in Iraq—and beyond—we will need more of Bush's suppleness and less of the much-lauded steadfastness.
The American plan was not to hold elections this January. Paul Bremer had set out a seven-step process in which the United States kept tight control of Iraq. Elections were to be held only after an elaborate series of caucuses to choose an assembly and draft a constitution, followed by a national referendum. Washington stood firm on this plan—"We will stay the course," Bush said repeatedly in the face of criticism—until it became clear that things were unraveling. A man to whom the U.S. had paid no attention, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most powerful voice in the Shia community, was dead set against it.
Recognizing reality, Washington in March 2004 hastily asked the United Nations to go in and broker a compromise. The administration then accepted an entirely new plan agreed to by Sistani and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. "[Brahimi] was the quarterback," Bush admitted, enraging many conservatives in Washington. In fact, these reversals were extremely wise and rescued America's Iraq policy.
By contrast, the one area in which Bush has been truly unwavering has been on troop levels. He has never seriously reconsidered his decision to occupy Iraq with about half the troops that many of his senior military officers believed necessary. Those officers' estimates were supported by every recent study of peacekeeping operations.
The constitution should be written by Iraqis who represent all segments of society—whether they win in these elections or not
Soon after the invasion, it became utterly obvious that these recommendations were right. Widespread looting, kidnapping, crime and ransacking of factories all spiraled out of control, and the insurgency thrived in this generally insecure environment. Support for the American occupation fell from over 70 percent to under 10 percent today. Commanders on the ground, Iraqi politicians and foreign diplomats all believed—and told members of the press—that a larger force would restore order.
President Bush, however, was unwavering. He had made his decision and he intended to stick by it. Well, almost. While refusing to admit any change, the administration during the past 10 months has quietly increased troop levels—at one point by a total of about 30,000—but the damage had been done. In other areas the pattern is the same. The administration disbanded the Iraqi Army, decapitated the bureaucracy and insisted on running everything in Iraq. Several of these mistakes were eventually corrected, but often too late and without conviction.
President Bush has often said that he emulates Abraham Lincoln. In a recent letter to a Civil War historian, he wrote, "Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course. I will do the same." But what is remarkable about Lincoln is how willing he was to admit that his choices weren't working, and to insist on changes. He ran through seven generals in three years (George McClellan twice, the second time after one month) until he found the man who could do the job—Ulysses S. Grant. He was often pilloried for his constant shifts of personnel and policy.
Lincoln stayed the course on one issue: preserving the Union. Bush has been similarly steadfast in his embrace of an important and noble goal: democracy in Iraq. But he has also been steadfastly opposed to recognizing that several of his policies have made the achievement of this goal much more difficult. When observers pointed to problems that could have been fixed, he and his supporters accused them of defeatism and weakness.
The greatest president felt differently. When Grant captured Vicksburg, Lincoln—who had believed that Grant was making a tactical blunder—wrote him at once, saying, "I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong." In fact, Lincoln's intellectual flexibility helped bring about his greatest legacy. In his first year in office, Lincoln had stubbornly rejected the idea of abolishing slavery. But by 1862 he recognized that the best path to preserving the Union was by freeing the slaves.
So, he wavered, reversed his position and changed course. Thank goodness.
In a recent letter to a Civil War historian, President Bush wrote, 'Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course. I will do the same'
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Feb. 14 issue - Last week's elections were a great day for Iraq, for the Middle East, for America and for one American in particular. George W. Bush rightly deserves credit for these elections and what they symbolize. Many have argued that the events vindicate Bush's steadfast, unwavering, even stubborn style of leadership. But do they? The Iraqi elections occurred because George Bush changed course, junked a previous plan and adapted to realities on the ground. In fact, much of the progress in Iraq over the past eight months can be traced to Bush's willingness to reverse himself. The enduring problems in Iraq, on the other hand, developed and grew because his administration doggedly refused to recognize errors and make changes. This is more than a point of historical interest. Going forward in Iraq—and beyond—we will need more of Bush's suppleness and less of the much-lauded steadfastness.
The American plan was not to hold elections this January. Paul Bremer had set out a seven-step process in which the United States kept tight control of Iraq. Elections were to be held only after an elaborate series of caucuses to choose an assembly and draft a constitution, followed by a national referendum. Washington stood firm on this plan—"We will stay the course," Bush said repeatedly in the face of criticism—until it became clear that things were unraveling. A man to whom the U.S. had paid no attention, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most powerful voice in the Shia community, was dead set against it.
Recognizing reality, Washington in March 2004 hastily asked the United Nations to go in and broker a compromise. The administration then accepted an entirely new plan agreed to by Sistani and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. "[Brahimi] was the quarterback," Bush admitted, enraging many conservatives in Washington. In fact, these reversals were extremely wise and rescued America's Iraq policy.
By contrast, the one area in which Bush has been truly unwavering has been on troop levels. He has never seriously reconsidered his decision to occupy Iraq with about half the troops that many of his senior military officers believed necessary. Those officers' estimates were supported by every recent study of peacekeeping operations.
The constitution should be written by Iraqis who represent all segments of society—whether they win in these elections or not
Soon after the invasion, it became utterly obvious that these recommendations were right. Widespread looting, kidnapping, crime and ransacking of factories all spiraled out of control, and the insurgency thrived in this generally insecure environment. Support for the American occupation fell from over 70 percent to under 10 percent today. Commanders on the ground, Iraqi politicians and foreign diplomats all believed—and told members of the press—that a larger force would restore order.
President Bush, however, was unwavering. He had made his decision and he intended to stick by it. Well, almost. While refusing to admit any change, the administration during the past 10 months has quietly increased troop levels—at one point by a total of about 30,000—but the damage had been done. In other areas the pattern is the same. The administration disbanded the Iraqi Army, decapitated the bureaucracy and insisted on running everything in Iraq. Several of these mistakes were eventually corrected, but often too late and without conviction.
President Bush has often said that he emulates Abraham Lincoln. In a recent letter to a Civil War historian, he wrote, "Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course. I will do the same." But what is remarkable about Lincoln is how willing he was to admit that his choices weren't working, and to insist on changes. He ran through seven generals in three years (George McClellan twice, the second time after one month) until he found the man who could do the job—Ulysses S. Grant. He was often pilloried for his constant shifts of personnel and policy.
Lincoln stayed the course on one issue: preserving the Union. Bush has been similarly steadfast in his embrace of an important and noble goal: democracy in Iraq. But he has also been steadfastly opposed to recognizing that several of his policies have made the achievement of this goal much more difficult. When observers pointed to problems that could have been fixed, he and his supporters accused them of defeatism and weakness.
The greatest president felt differently. When Grant captured Vicksburg, Lincoln—who had believed that Grant was making a tactical blunder—wrote him at once, saying, "I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong." In fact, Lincoln's intellectual flexibility helped bring about his greatest legacy. In his first year in office, Lincoln had stubbornly rejected the idea of abolishing slavery. But by 1862 he recognized that the best path to preserving the Union was by freeing the slaves.
So, he wavered, reversed his position and changed course. Thank goodness.
