Failure to lead

The more time goes by, the less I enjoy our political system. Granted there is the "worst except for all the others" bromide, but that stopped calming my nerves a while ago.

I realize I'm to the right of 80, maybe 90 percent of the country. I accept that I can't possibly get all that I want. What gets me is that I can't vote for someone and expect to use the campaign platform as an indicator of future policies. Dubya came in against farm subsidies and yet didn't blink at signing record increases that went primarily to wealthy landowners and connected corporations. Republicans voted into congress to fight things like wasteful spending were going hog-wild within four years. Throw in the steady trickle of sexual and financial scandals on every level of government and it's easy to be jaded.

In 2004 I was more anti-Kerry than pro-Bush. I see that many people who were that way at the time are now more anti-Bush and want their votes back. Not me. However, I'm much less pro-Bush now than I was then, which has caused me to write a lot less about politics and current events over the last two years even though I read much more about both. The best example is the war.

In 2004, the Sunni insurgency started up. I figured they would be crushed quickly, and that we wouldn't tolerate any safehavens for Ba'athists or foreign terrorists. As it turns out, during the 2004 campaign Bush knew that there were large sections of the country with no coalition presence whatsoever and he never made the case for additional troops. I'd read stories from the front where US troops were winning battles and winning over civilians, and I figured that was happening across the nation and thus victory was around the corner. However, that progress was only made where soldiers were, which in turn was far too small a portion of the country.

I can understand being fed up with the Iraqis today, saying that we've done enough and that we don't need to shed any more blood for them. However, in 2004 the Iraqis hadn't been given half a chance and we were responsible for at least trying to secure the country as best we were able to. Looking at how much the surge has accomplished in the last three months, it's obvious that 2004 was not "as best we were able to". Neither was 2005 or 2006. But what's more, in 2004 we had far more soldiers who hadn't spent the maximum amount of time on the front the way there is today. A surge in 2004 could have used more soldiers, it wouldn't have needed even a fraction as much in targeting Shia militants, and it would have trampled the Sunni insurgency long before the 2006 mosque bombing that sent violence levels through the roof.

A quality leader in the White House would never half-ass a war. Doing so put more of our troops in danger over the long haul, and I can guarantee it was done in an effort to maintain Bush's poll numbers. A leader would have success and doing good by the troops as the top goal, not politics. I firmly believe the rhetoric Bush uses about the importance of Iraq in the war on terror and the world overall, but Bush doesn't act as if HE believes it. Let me give you some examples.

If he really believed it, he would put public pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of arms and men through Syria and into Iraq. Saudi state-sponsored religious leaders and media have supported the insurgency from the start. American troops put their lives on the line for the sake of regional security; the least the Sauds can do is get out of the way.

If he really believed it, he would gather as much data as possible about Syrian and Iranian complicity in the violence and mount a diplomatic campaign to lobby for sanctions. Whatever behind-the-scenes assurances would be needed that the campaign was not a run-up to more wars, he'd have to give them. Instead there hasn't been any sign that they're doing more than just leaks to the press about suspect weapons and supply trails. If Iran is really providing the IEDs that kill troops by the dozen every month, why not pressure Japan to buy their oil elsewhere? Why not pressure France and Germany to have their large (and often state-tied) corporations pull out of Tehran? The administration has no qualms about levelling accusations but nobody puts much stock into them because they don't take the obvious next step and try to hit back at Syria and Iran over their actions in Iraq. Compare to what we've done to Syria over Lebanon and Iran over the nuclear issue.

If Bush really believed in the importance of Iraq and the war on terror he would have called for an expansion of the military long ago. Don't support the surge? It doesn't matter because in a few months we won't have enough soldiers for it unless we extend tours of duty to an absurd length! It's not as though there's no money for it, I mean, we have enough to fill the coffers of Archer Daniels Midland and build bridges for fifty people in Alaska and support money pits like corn-based ethanol (other crops make better fuel). He could have made the case, beaten up congressional Republicans, and tried to make sure we have enough manpower to win in Iraq and more effectively hold Afghanistan. Would it have been risky? Yes. But fully acknowledging the difficulties and the cost involved in winning would have the benefit of being the truth and war supporters like me would have backed him twice as much.

Talking about preventing another 9/11 while relying on a 'light footprint' in Iraq and a shrunken force in Afghanistan isn't leadership. It's partisan cowardice. I'm glad that the surge finally happened but the delay has cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, and there's no guarantee we'll even succeed in the end. The insecurity of Iraq in 2004, 2005 and 2006 helped shape the dysfunctional politics in Baghdad today and it might be beyond repair at this point.

You might be against the US presence in Iraq. This post isn't an attempt to justify that. Rather, I'm trying to say that the Bush 2 administration has been an object lesson in how not to govern as a hawk. Poor leadership has meant that those who opposed the invasion are almost entirely opposed to the occupation, and many who supported the invasion have either turned or are now demoralized, which is bad politics. Poor leadership also let a bad situation get much, much worse.

I'm hoping for better from the 2008 candidates but I'm keeping my expectations low.