Election 2006 and the Iraq Fiasco: Leadership, Not One-Upmanship, Will Bring America Home
Michael Butler
August 12, 2006
As a campaign representative for Ralph Nader in the Presidential Election of 2004, I spoke openly and harshly against the policies and the proposals of both George Bush and John Kerry.
During the final five weeks before Election Day, I was on the road through Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota — three strikingly "red" states — telling high school and college students, print journalists, television reporters and radio talk show hosts how the "visionless quest" of George Bush was "bringing this country to its knees."
"Ya can't lead if you're not consistent," George Bush would say. "We have to stay the course." And the country followed him.
But if you can't see where you're going, you shouldn't be allowed to lead.
I will say this point blank. Quagmire leads to fiasco; and fiasco leads to conflagration. It doesn't have to be this way; but so far, all the cumulative experience of holding the Presidency in Republican hands for most of the past four decades has not given the Bush administration the intellectual resources to sidestep a quagmire which, on current course, is aiming toward unhappy conclusions that will make America's defeat in Viet Nam look like the cakewalk we wish for.
During the election, John Kerry distinguished himself mostly by following George Bush instead of leading the American people; and emerged at the end as a smaller figure than when he began. Last month, however, I heard him on the Senate floor, singing a slightly different tune.
What we need is not more troops in Iraq, he said, not more American involvement; but more diplomacy and more international involvement. I felt that he was on the right track; but he had the air of someone making a futile protest, like a child who has been punished by being made to stay late after school.
Indeed, there are surprising numbers of people in American government who appear to understand the mess that we are in, and have at least a few good ideas about what we might do differently.
What impressed me most about the recent appearance of America's military leadership before the Senate Armed Services Committee was not the vociferous performance of Democrats looking to score points, but the quiet, sober directness of Republican stalwarts like John Warner, John McCain and even Lindsey Graham, who took Donald Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace and U.S. Central Command General John Abizaid to task for past and present policies and statements, holding their feet to the fire. There were no cheerleaders for the administration here.
It was Republican questioning — not Hillary Clinton's, not Jack Reed's — which brought forth the most dramatic statements from the panel of witnesses.
For the first time, top administration officials were made to face the reality in public that civil war and a social upheaval like ethnic cleansing have been emerging in Iraq, against all rosy predictions and America's best efforts to the contrary.
It does not give me pleasure to see great military commanders cringe, or turn their eyes downcast. I grieve for my country, even as I grieve for the innocent in Israel and Lebanon; even as I've watched the nation of Lebanon being obscenely punished, while much of the world gives Hezbollah all the credit for defending her.
No, I am not an optimist. I have never seen a low point that could not get lower; a difficult situation that could not become harder; a problem that could not be compounded by still more and greater problems. But I am a hopeful person.
My hope now is that leadership will emerge from within the American people that can heal and overcome the complex morass of self-reinforcing degeneration that is pushing the world to a precipice and our nation toward a clock of doom.
There are many, many bright lights in the House and Senate, and on the horizon all around us. But there is no one that I know of who sees the entire picture clearly, and seems to know exactly what we need to do.
What we most need right now in order to achieve victory over our enemies is to find someone who has the capacity to take responsibility for the mistakes of George Bush. This is not about finger-pointing and assigning blame. This is about maturity.
I truly wish I was a rocket scientist; but you don't need to be one in order to figure out that Bush has made mistakes. Until we reach this as the starting point for all discussion, we will never make progress.
During the final five weeks before Election Day, I was on the road through Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota — three strikingly "red" states — telling high school and college students, print journalists, television reporters and radio talk show hosts how the "visionless quest" of George Bush was "bringing this country to its knees."
"Ya can't lead if you're not consistent," George Bush would say. "We have to stay the course." And the country followed him.
But if you can't see where you're going, you shouldn't be allowed to lead.
I will say this point blank. Quagmire leads to fiasco; and fiasco leads to conflagration. It doesn't have to be this way; but so far, all the cumulative experience of holding the Presidency in Republican hands for most of the past four decades has not given the Bush administration the intellectual resources to sidestep a quagmire which, on current course, is aiming toward unhappy conclusions that will make America's defeat in Viet Nam look like the cakewalk we wish for.
During the election, John Kerry distinguished himself mostly by following George Bush instead of leading the American people; and emerged at the end as a smaller figure than when he began. Last month, however, I heard him on the Senate floor, singing a slightly different tune.
What we need is not more troops in Iraq, he said, not more American involvement; but more diplomacy and more international involvement. I felt that he was on the right track; but he had the air of someone making a futile protest, like a child who has been punished by being made to stay late after school.
Indeed, there are surprising numbers of people in American government who appear to understand the mess that we are in, and have at least a few good ideas about what we might do differently.
What impressed me most about the recent appearance of America's military leadership before the Senate Armed Services Committee was not the vociferous performance of Democrats looking to score points, but the quiet, sober directness of Republican stalwarts like John Warner, John McCain and even Lindsey Graham, who took Donald Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace and U.S. Central Command General John Abizaid to task for past and present policies and statements, holding their feet to the fire. There were no cheerleaders for the administration here.
It was Republican questioning — not Hillary Clinton's, not Jack Reed's — which brought forth the most dramatic statements from the panel of witnesses.
For the first time, top administration officials were made to face the reality in public that civil war and a social upheaval like ethnic cleansing have been emerging in Iraq, against all rosy predictions and America's best efforts to the contrary.
It does not give me pleasure to see great military commanders cringe, or turn their eyes downcast. I grieve for my country, even as I grieve for the innocent in Israel and Lebanon; even as I've watched the nation of Lebanon being obscenely punished, while much of the world gives Hezbollah all the credit for defending her.
No, I am not an optimist. I have never seen a low point that could not get lower; a difficult situation that could not become harder; a problem that could not be compounded by still more and greater problems. But I am a hopeful person.
My hope now is that leadership will emerge from within the American people that can heal and overcome the complex morass of self-reinforcing degeneration that is pushing the world to a precipice and our nation toward a clock of doom.
There are many, many bright lights in the House and Senate, and on the horizon all around us. But there is no one that I know of who sees the entire picture clearly, and seems to know exactly what we need to do.
What we most need right now in order to achieve victory over our enemies is to find someone who has the capacity to take responsibility for the mistakes of George Bush. This is not about finger-pointing and assigning blame. This is about maturity.
I truly wish I was a rocket scientist; but you don't need to be one in order to figure out that Bush has made mistakes. Until we reach this as the starting point for all discussion, we will never make progress.
Print
Email
