Choosing a President (2)

I have said that maturity of character is the most important qualification to be President. So in the current field passes this test?

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton appears to have the best character to be President. She's never actually been President, but she used to live with someone who was. She knows a lot of what is involved in fulfilling the office.

Barack Obama is young, charismatic and gives the impression he knows what he's doing. But he is 45 now, and on inauguration day he will be 47. He is only in the third year of his first term as Senator. Hillary turns 60 later this year. The American electorate, after choosing two successive Presidents (Clinton and Bush) who turned out not to have the maturity of character required for the office, needs to be very careful this time around to choose someone whose has the character needed for the office.

Of course, someone might argue that a Black person in America, because of all the extra obstacles he or she needs to overcome, develops at least as much character in 45 years as a White person does in 60. Good point. Hillary, though, can trump this argument by saying, "Yeah, but look who I've been married to and all that I've had to put up with him." I think she comes out the winner in this contest. I think Obama will make a great President, but not this time.

(Continued . . .)

How to choose a President (1)

We have so many presidential candidates this year, maybe we should let the American Idol judges have a go at them before the rest of America has to start voting.

Absent that option, I am going to propose some criteria to winnow the field a bit.

First, the most important qualification to be President of the United States is to possess the maturity of character that is appropriate to the office. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush fell short on this point.

When Mr. Clinton demonstrated immaturity of character to a White House intern, his allies tried to argue that character was not important. In fact, it is the most important of all. The President is not just a policy maker. He represents the country, and it's important that we be represented by a man or woman of good character. It's important for our own self-image as a nation and for our standing in the world.

I once heard a person argue that Mr. Clinton would have made a great president, if he had taken office at least a decade later than he did. That sounds right to me. About ten more years of maturity would have served him well.

George W. Bush's immaturity of character was illustrated when he took the country to war when there were still other options available to him. Perhaps he let Dick Cheney pressure him into a decision that went against his better judgment. Perhaps his public judgment was clouded by his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein stemming from a 1993 assassination attempt against his father and his wife. The fact is that he didn't pressure the CIA for better and more accurate intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't look like he asked the question, "Why do we need to go war now, as opposed to a year from now."

(Continued . . . )

The saga continues on Iraq war funding bill

Congressional leaders have been invited to a meeting with President Bush today to discuss the impasse over the war funding bill. It appears unlikely the meeting will serve to narrow the divide between the two sides.

(Sure enough! Here's the report.)

At this point, it is important for President Bush to realize that there are certain definite limitations when a free and democratic society such as the United States chooses to prosecute a war. The government cannot keep the country in a war for an extended period without firm public support.

Today, that support does not exist. It is time for the President to consider how to accomplish the objectives of the war through other means. Many of the assumptions behind the decision to go to war have been demonstrated to have been wrong. In such a situation, it is only natural that the country would want to pull the troops out and rethink our strategy for the region.

True, there are times when a leader must take an unpopular course of action. But President Bush should not cast himself in such a heroic role, because that principle does not apply here. It would be one thing if the public were saying, "We think you're wrong, but because we believe in you and you have a track record of good leadership we are going to give you the benefit of the doubt." That is not what the public is saying today.

There were periods in his administration when he had command of such respect. After the 2004 election, he claimed he had "earned political capital" and told us he intended to spend it. In 2006, the electorate transferred ownership of that capital to the Democrats and President Bush needs to acknowledge this fact.

The leader of a democratic society can go against the tide of public support only for so long before his righteous conviction to principle becomes obstinate refusal to consider other options. Presidents are elected to four-year terms, but that does not mean a President can ignore changes in public opinion after he is elected.

President Clinton was often criticized for governing by opinion poll. President Bush appears to have taken the matter to the other extreme, and it is even more problematic for the country.

Now we know the White House spin

The Washington Times this morning has followed up on the "war czar" story that The Washington Post broke yesterday. Basically, the Times story is a straight reporting of the White House reaction to the Post story, and leaves the reader wondering, "So, what's really going on here?" Too bad the Times couldn't talk to anyone other than the White House spokeswoman.

America needs a President, not a "War Czar"

"War Czar": Now there's a title that would stand out on a resume! It seems that the White House has to mediate so many battles between the departments of Defense and State that President Bush has decided to appoint someone to do this full time. It turns out, though, that it's not so easy to find someone to take the job.

Retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, one of the people who turned down the job, noted that the fundamental problem doesn't lie with either Defense or State.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," he is reported to have said.

Gen. Sheehan is right. Squabbling among subordinates is often a symptom of ineffective leadership. President Bush needs to lay out a clear and realistic vision of where U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is going. And then he needs to sell this vision to the American people.

The policy will not be sustainable unless the President can sell it to the American public. And right now, the public is clear that it will not accept anything that doesn't not involve the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

President Bush needs to own up to the responsibilities of the presidency himself, rather than trying to appoint someone else to do his job.

In Iraq, first get the troops out

The good news in Iraq is that things have at least not gotten any worse under President Bush's new "surge" strategy. The bad news is that no progress is being reported toward a structure where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds would govern the country jointly.

My hope for the "surge" strategy is that it will create an exit point where the U.S. can withdraw its troops with some semblance of security in at least Baghdad. There should not be any expectation that this strategy will lead to the realization of President Bush's pre-invasion Utopian goal that Iraq become a "place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation" or that it serve as a "catalyst for change, positive change" in the region.

U.S. withdrawal may well lead to greater bloodshed in the short term. But it is clear that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is not moving the country toward peace. Military force cannot force sworn enemies to live together. If this is what President Bush wants, he will need to reach out to the religious communities in Iraq, using the religious communities in America.

The report that Middle East nations will gather in Egypt next month to discuss security issues involving Iraq is encouraging in that it appears to signal a greater willingness among surrounding states to take a more direct role in the Iraqi situation.

After the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the U.S. will need to continue its involvement in Iraq through through non-military channels. Surrounding countries will also need to take a much more active role so as to steer the region away from a direct military confrontation between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, which is what many see as a worst-case scenario.

Pelosi dares to visit Damascus

It shouldn't be difficult for mature adults to agree that cutting off communication is not a mature or effective way to deal with disagreements.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has met with Syrian President Bassar al-Assad, and President Bush is making clear his displeasure over the meeting. He says Pelosi has given Syria the mistaken impression that Syria has been allowed back into the mainstream of the world community.

When children become angry at a parent or a friend, they sometimes resort to what they consider the ultimate nuclear option, declaring: "I'll never talk to you again for the rest of my life. NOT EVER EVER EVER!!!" Should the United States, as the leading country of the world, be acting like a spoiled child?

It is not helpful to U.S. interests to be giving the impression that we expect other countries to consider it a privilege to be granted the right to engage in two-way discussions us. During the Cold War, we talked regularly with the Soviet Union. We never talked to Cuba. Today, the Soviet Union is gone, and Cuba's Marxist regime is still with us. Based on that, it seems talking to our enemies is not so bad an idea after all.

Perhaps the Speaker can swing by North Korea on her way home?

Climbing out of our pit in Iraq

I recently spent some time traveling outside the United States. I discovered that when people found out that I was an American, the conversation often turned to Iraq.

Many of the people I spoke with felt that things would not be as bad as they are today if the U.S. had pulled out after capturing Saddam Hussein. No one who spoke with me felt that the U.S. presence in Iraq today is justified. That didn't necessarily mean that everyone wanted the U.S. to withdraw immediately. In most cases, it meant they wanted the U.S. to define a clear and responsible exit point and move toward that point as quickly as possible.

I have explained my own views elsewhere in this blog. I think President Bushed made the wrong decision in March 2003. He should have postponed military action at least another year.

Having gone to war when he did, I think the President compounded his error by putting too much faith in the power of military force to solve problems.

In a press conference held March 6, 2003, President Bush said:

I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated society. Iraq's got money. Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive change.

In hindsight, this statement shows that President Bush is a person of Utopian ideals. But history has shown again and again that the pursuit of Utopia without acknowledging existing realities leads to tragedy. That in large part explains what has happened in Iraq during the past four years. President Bush thought that removing Saddam Hussein would be like blowing up a log jam in a river, and that the dictator's removal would let Iraq move quickly toward its natural destiny as a liberal democracy.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld looked at Saddam's Iraq and saw Hitler's Germany. A liberated Germany was important for a troubled post-war Europe. It was capable of governing itself. It was a sophisticated society with money. It showed that its people could get along in a federation, and it served as a catalyst for positive change. Like a Hollywood director filming the umpteen hundredth reenactment of World War II, the U.S. administration thought it could apply the script from the U.S. victory in World War II to Iraq. They were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with having Utopian ideals for the world. In fact, I share the President's ideals. I, too, believe that Iraq, along with all other societies, is eventually destined to become a place where people can live in peace with each other, despite differences of ethnicity and religion. I also believe that the United States has a unique role to play in bringing progress toward that goal.

But there is a pitfall in putting too much faith in the ability of military force to solve problems, and today we find ourselves at the bottom of this pit.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the "surge" strategy is working. Let's hope he is being straight with us about his assessment, and that his assessment is correct. Let's hope that this will lead to an exit point before another year goes by.

Even after withdrawing its troops from Iraq, the United States will need to continue to be engaged with that country and its region. Let's hope, though, that this engagement will be carried out with greater wisdom and sophistication.

Putting party before country

I was beginning to like Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but now I'm not so sure.

Speaking about the prospects for a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's announced new policy in Iraq, Obama said Monday:

I think we will get a majority of the Senate saying that this is a bad idea. That will give us, I think, the impetus and the political symbolism to then start pursuing a more concrete plan to . . .

Once he got this far into his sentence, I thought I could guess what he was going to say next. I thought the next words out of his mouth would be something like "stop the bloodshed in Iraq," or "bring stability in Iraq to the extent that we can start to bring our troops home," or maybe even "constrain the terrorists."

Imagine my shock when the actual words he used to finish the sentence were:

". . . constrain the president."

Is that what this is all about? Is Iraq just one more theater in the political war in Washington between Republicans and Democrats? Is there less concern for who wins in Iraq than there is for who wins in the next general election?

How disappointing that we should hear such a statement from someone who today took the necessary legal step to allow fundraising for a possible presidential campaign.

Peace is the goal, senator, not the White House.

Please keep your eye on the goal. Don't let flatterers and hangers on who see you primarily as a tool to advance their own personal careers in Washington distract you from the real goal.

Bush tries to make the hard sell

It's not surprising that President Bush is having a hard time selling his new Iraq policy to the U.S. public. It's clear now to everyone other than the "My-president-right-or-wrong" crowd that Bush committed a serious error in pulling the trigger on the Iraq war in March 2003. Some think he should not have gone to war at all. I think he should have waited, perhaps another year or two, before making the final decision.

The strong impression many of us have that the administration has tried to spin the war over the years and be less than honest with the U.S. public about what was going on makes the president's task now even more difficult. Remember the talk about "dead-enders"?

People are saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The tragic thing is that Bush probably has at least a significant part of the solution this time. Pulling the troops out precipitously would clearly have disastrous consequences. Not to mention the fact that it would probably be immoral.

Then-secretary of state Colin Powell once cited what he called the "Pottery Barn Principle," that if you break something you need to pay for it. Pottery Barn later protested that they had no such policy, but Powell had the right idea. We can't just go into somebody's country, tear the place up and then leave it in shambles.

If Bush's policy ultimately fails, the most likely reason is that it does not put enough emphasis on creating a sustainable living environment in the areas that are cleared by Iraqi and U.S. military forces. This effort needs to include an outreach to the leaders of rival religious communities. I haven't seen any discussion of this and this concerns me. The terrorists have successfully exploited religious rivalries to foment more violence. Those working for peace in Iraq also need to understand the important roles to be played by the religious communities.

Another possible reason for failure is that the terrorists simply fall back and let the U.S. do what they want and create the conditions necessary for its troops to leave the country. Once the troops have left, they can come back in and continue their campaign of killing.

The Democratic move to deny funds for the buildup can only be seen as populist grandstanding that does not serve the interests of the country.

Wanted: One Patriotic Politician

I could not bring myself to watch the President's speech last night. It was too painful for me. President Bush pulled the trigger on the Iraq war in March 2003, in my opinion, in part because he did not understand the limitations of military power and the grave implications of exercising this power in the wrong place at the wrong time. Today, I'm not convinced that his knowledge in this area has improved significantly.

So this morning, I read the speech on the White House website.

In the speech, Bush expressed the view that the political gains made by the Iraqi election in January 2005 threatened to undermine the terrorists' objectives, so they adopted a strategy of fomenting sectarian violence. This strategy on their part, he says, has succeeded.

If that was what was happening, then Bush should have been pushing for a strategy to encourage sectarian unity. Where were the appeals to the religious leaders to use their influence to prevent Iraq from falling into sectarian strife? Did Bush try to enlist the help of Shiite and Sunni communities in the United States to communicate with these leaders? These two communities live at peace with each other in this country.

Even now, while acknowledging that the enemy has successfully exploited historical animosities between the two major religious communities to serve their ends, he does not come out with his own strategy of alleviating these animosities as a way to undermine the terrorists' goals.

Now his plan is to send in more than 20,000 troops. This time it will be different, he says, because Iraqi forces will take the lead and because neighborhoods cleared of terrorists will have troops stationed there to make sure the terrorists don't return.

Iraqis will be given jobs, and infrastructure will be restored. By November, the Iraqi government will have secured all its provinces.

Perhaps we will get lucky. Perhaps the terrorists will decide to let the Baghdad government "win," and move to take over the country only after U.S. troops have withdrawn. If we are unlucky, the terrorists will keep up the pressure on the U.S. to prevent any withdrawal, not only in November, but not even after January 2009, when a U.S. President from the Democratic Party is inaugurated.

The following quote from an analysis by UPI International Editor Claude Salhani seems instructive:

"The most realistic outlook is for civil strife between Sunnis and Shiites to rage on for a number of years until there is a clear winner, a compromise borne of shear exhaustion or a break up of the country. The challenge for the United States will be to keep the entire, oil-rich region from descending into chaos," say [James Hoge, editor, Peter G. Peterson, chair, of Foreign Affairs].

The Democrats are not helping matters any today by threatening to withhold funds for the buildup announced by Bush. They know they are just grandstanding for the sake of their supporters. The country is in danger, but their primary consideration is to figure out how best to position their party for 2008.

America is in dire need of a leader who will be a true patriot. The soldiers dying in Iraq are patriots, because they are laying down their lives for no reason other than that they were asked to do so by their country. All Americans should salute their sacrifice with humble gratitude.

The country needs a political leader who will step up to the same standard of patriotism as those soldiers in Iraq. Who among our politicians will serve the interests of the country, even if it means putting their political career in jeopardy? Bush has fallen short of that mark, and so have Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic Party leaders.

Bush moves "all in"

With his new proposal on Iraq, Bush has moved all his -- actually our -- chips into the center of the table. Democrat or Republican, red or blue, we all have a lot at stake in this move to stabilize the situation in Iraq to the point that our troops can come home.

The worst case scenario now is that the temporary increase in troops becomes a permanent escalation. For that not to happen, the country needs to come together and put its full effort behind the new strategy.

Bush made a mistake in pulling the trigger on the Iraq war in March 2003. But we're there now, and the fighting between Democrats and Republicans isn't going to get us out.

Dick Cheney for President?

World Peace Herald has received a number of comments from people calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Apparently, Vice President Dick Cheney has a lot of fans out there. Either that, or the United States has a lot of citizens who think with some part of the anatomy other than their head. Click here to see some of these comments and my responses.

In my opinion, President Bush made a mistake when he pulled the trigger on the Iraq war in March 2003. The reality, however, is that because we as a country put him in the presidency, we share in the responsibility for his mistakes. It doesn't matter who you voted for -- despite what the bumper sticker says -- and it doesn't matter if you didn't vote at all. The world will hold all Americans responsible for Iraq. As World War II was the legacy of a previous generation, Iraq appears likely to be remembered as the legacy of our generation.

That being the case, it would be wise for us to work together to somehow salvage something from this affair. Once the troops are safely home, the country can discuss how to deal with the leaders who got us into this thing. But there's no time for that now.

Will Bush also sort out the junk mail for me?

The Senate Intelligence Committee says it will look into a report that President Bush has signed a document giving the government the right to open the mail of U.S. citizens without a warrant during certain emergencies.

The White House, in one of those statements that are intended to assure us that nothing is amiss but actually scare us even more, has said the President was not claiming any new authority. OK, so just how long has the government had the right to open my mail?

Have we just slipped a little further down the slippery slope from democracy to despotism? Have we just handed the terrorists another victory as they try to undermine the pillars of U.S. society? Let's stay tuned to what the Senate Intelligence Committee has to say on the matter.

The Europeans still don't get it

World Peace Herald publishes a wide variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with. Martin Walker's commentary "Grim forebodings for the New Year" is certainly an example of that.

The fact that he writes with a Paris dateline is, of course, a somewhat grim foreboding for what is contained in the remainder of the article. Reporters are influenced by the environment in which they write. Good reporters try not to be, and Walker is definitely a very excellent reporter, but it still happens.

All jokes about "freedom fries" aside, there definitely is in France, as well as in much of the rest of Europe, a curious inability to understand what makes the United States work and how it is that the U.S. came to be the world's sole superpower.

Walker's lead sentence "Not since the grimmest days of the Cold War has a New Year opened with such a sense of foreboding for the United States" says a lot about the European environment in which Walker is writing.

Then he gives a list of the issues the United States faces in the world today -- Iraq, dollar, North Korea and Iran, economy, and so on. Each of these is supposed to lead to the downfall of the U.S. and any country foolish enough to remain its ally.

Walker appears to be reflecting the general view of America's critics in Europe, whose track record shows a consistent failure to take into account the resilience of the United States in the face of difficulty. Yes, there are problems today. President Bush clearly committed a major error in taking the country to war in Iraq in March 2003.

U.S. national security was not in imminent danger. Bush should have waited, perhaps a year or more, before pulling the trigger. That would have given more time to gather better information on what WMDs were really there, or not there, more time to bring allies on board, more time to plan what to do with Iraq after Saddam had been ousted. With any kind of luck, the war may have become unnecessary. Following the start of the war, he compounded the error by stubbornly refusing, until only just recently, to acknowledge his error and seek advice on a change of course.

But the United States is greater than any single leader. In November, the U.S. electorate sent a strong message to President Bush by handing control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats, and Bush seems finally to have heard the message. Now we will see what the Democrats will do. In all likelihood, they will not deliver as much as they promised their constituents, or even as much as they think they can today.

Yes, U.S. credibility is suffered a large blow. But credibility is always going up and down. If it's down now, it can rebound.

The United States is a country where Jews and Palestinians, Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and a whole host of other "enemies" can live in close proximity with each other without feeling that they have some historical obligation to go around killing each other. Its political culture is mature enough that disagreements can be settled, by in large, through the political process.

This is just one of the aspects of U.S. society that gives me confidence that 2007 will be a rather good year for the country.

As for Walker's comments on increasing economic competition from China, how is this a part of a "grim" picture? When other countries develop their economies, with much help from America as an export market and a model of economic success, that is a good thing. Better living standards in China will also benefit the U.S.