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 . . . )

Sen. Durbin should have risked more

Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-Ill.) said on the floor of the House Wednesday that he knew the information the White House was presenting to the public leading up to the Iraq War was different from what he was hearing in classified briefings on the intelligence committee, but that the law prevented him from saying this in public.

I'm not sure why he would bring this up now, except perhaps as a way of acknowledging that he shares in the responsibility for misleading the American public.

Revealing what he heard in the classified briefings would have brought criminal charges against him. He says he spoke out against the war in general terms and voted against the resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war.

But cannot say he did everything he could to save the country from the tragedy we face today. Other Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the resolution. How hard did he try to convince them to vote against the war? Half the Democrats on the intelligence committee voted with the Republicans in favor of going to war. If Durbin knew that something wasn't right, he needed at least to persuade other Democrats on the committee to stand with him in opposing the war.

Simply to say now, "I voted the right way back then," does not absolve a person of all responsibility. There was a wide spectrum of actions he could have taken short of breaking the laws that protect classified information. From what we know so far, Sen. Durbin does not seem to have walked that line very far at all.

Young Americans are putting their lives at risk in Iraq today. If Sen. Durbin had risked a little more in 2003 than he did, they might not be there.

The missing debate

Former CIA director George Tenet says in a new book that there was never a debate within the Bush White House on the merits of going to war with Saddam Hussein. The White House counter claim is to say there was a debate, it's just that the director of the CIA was not in a position to be aware of it.

I don't know which is worse: that there was never any debate at all, or that the alleged debate went on without the head of the country's intelligence agency being aware of it.

The United States needs to fight terrorism. But military strategists from Sun Tsu on down have emphasized the importance of picking the field of battle that is most advantageous for your own side. Iraq is not the only option for our field of battle in this war.

Gen. David Patraeus, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has said that he will give us an assessment in September on whether he thinks the current "surge" strategy is working. Let's hope that he will give us an honest assessment, and he will not be tied to the notion that we must stay in Iraq for no other reason than the fact that we are already there.

No surge in Washington

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says he needs more time to tell whether President Bush's "surge" strategy will work to improve the situation in Iraq. What is already clear, however, is that it has already failed in Washington.

If President Bush wants an open-ended scheduled for the involvement of U.S. troops in Iraq, then he needs to come up with a credible explanation on how this is going to improve the situation there. Just saying that if we don't fight terrorists in Iraq we will find ourselves fighting them here is not enough. Part of the burden of taking a democratic country to war is that the President must take upon himself the responsibility to maintain the support of the public.

Given the history of how the United States got involved in Iraq, and given the various statements by the administration about progress in the war that were later shown by events to have been overly optimistic, President Bush cannot expect Congress to give him the open-ended commitment that he seeks. Not under the current conditions.

Recall Sen. Reid

The constitution gives Congress power to declare war. In this age of undeclared wars, that power has been greatly weakened. So Senate majority leader Harry Reid apparently has decided that Congress ought, instead, to have the power to declare defeat in wars.

The leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate told journalists Thursday:

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

He says he told the President the same thing Wednesday, when Congressional leaders met the President to discuss the war funding bill.

I have no problem with that. What the senator tells the President in private is entirely up to him. But to make such a statement on the record is inexcusable. In some twisted political calculation, it may be beneficial for the Democratic Party. But Sen. Reid seriously undermined the national interest of our country, and he needs to be called to account for that.

Sen. Reid's remarks have more to do with the civil war between Red and Blue that is going on in America that it does with any effort to do what is best for the United States as a whole in Iraq and the Middle East.

Last Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney speculated that the Democrats would come around eventually, because defunding the war would mean the Democrats would have to shoulder responsibility for the U.S. defeat that would surely follow such a move. Sen. Reid's remark today was calculated to counter the Vice President's strategy. If the war is already lost, according to Sen. Reid's implied calculation, the Democrats cannot be blamed for it no matter what happens from here on out.

Sen. Reid gave no thought to the strategic effect that his public comment would have on the country. He critically undermined the national interests of the United States in making this remark.

The people of Nevada should recall Sen. Reid, and elect someone who cares about the country.

Robert Gates, Secretary of Reconciliation?

The news on Iraq today is that U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates is in Iraq to "spur reconciliation" (AP headline). It's good that such a high level Bush administration official is in Baghdad to tell Iraqi leaders that they must not assume that U.S. forces will be around forever, and that they need to figure out a way to live together.

I am not so sure though, that the "secretary of defense," backed up by the strongest military in the world, is the right person to send if what is needed is someone to spur reconciliation among the various Iraqi factions. Right job, wrong person.

Reconciliation among various political and religious factions in Iraq is crucial to the success of the U.S. effort there, and so a focused effort toward this objective should have been launched much earlier.

It is not too late for the U.S. to begin such an effort, but it needs to involve a much broader spectrum of people than just the secretary of defense. Leaders from civil society, particularly religious leaders from the Islamic communities in the United States, must become involved.

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.

What comes after U.S. pulls out of Iraq?

U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates met Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday, and discussed peace in the Middle East. The resulting news article is very frustrating to read, because it says just enough to let you know that there is much more that is not being revealed.

Let's hope that they discussed a scenario for Iraq that begins with the pullout of most or all U.S. forces. The United States will need to remain involved in Iraq after the pull out in order to do whatever it can to maintain some semblance of stability in the region. Specifically, it will need to avoid a Sunni massacre by Iraq's Shiite majority, which has a lot of anger pent up after being ruthlessly suppressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime.

A solution for peace in Iraq at this point, needs to begin with the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but that withdrawal must happen in conjunction with other efforts aimed at preventing the situation in Iraq from deteriorating even further after U.S. forces have left.

"Surge" too little too late?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a news conference today with retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. and retired Brig. General John H. Johns. Sen. Reid's repeated his point on the ongoing conflict with the President over the war funding bill.

The Generals spoke in opposition to the current "surge" strategy. One point made was that the current strategy might have worked if it had been implemented years ago, but now it is just too little too late. The troops are not trained to perform the mission they are not being asked to perform. U.S. ground forces are being seen as unwelcome occupying forces, and this is not likely to change.

Their input needs to be taken seriously.

It has been clear for a long time that the solution in Iraq is not military. Neither is it political, despite what the politicians in Washington like to think. The solution must involve the religious leaders of the various communities in Iraq.

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.

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.

Excuse me. May I carve up your country?

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations are proposing a solution for Iraq that involves dividing the country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions, leaving a small central government, leaving some U.S. troops, and increasing reconstruction aid.

I see a couple of problems with this. First, it's not nice for America to be talking about cutting up other people's countries. It's proposals like this that give the United States a reputation of arrogance in the world. If the proposal is a good one, it needs to come from Baghdad, not Washington.

Biden and Gelb have a list of people they say have praised the plan, but I had to scroll down pretty far before finally finding an Iraqi on the list. Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie is quoted as having said last May: "I think the Biden idea is a good idea, with some modifications." I don't see anyone else from Iraq jumping on board the proposal, and I don't see al-Rubaie bringing up the subject more recently.

A second problem is that it's not clear how dividing the country will lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops. I suppose the idea is that when everyone has their own land and a share of the oil revenue, they will be happy and content and order will be restored.

People are strange, though. They are rarely content with what they are given. At least not for very long. They usually find a reason to try and take more. I think we may end up paying for a few "separation barriers" if we go with this plan.

In any event, the proposal should be a non-starter as long as it is originating in Washington. If Sen. Biden wants to pursue this, he needs to withdraw his proposal and then talk to the Iraqis about making their own proposal along these lines.

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.

Can Iraq save America?

Here's a blog post worth reading!

Frank Kaufmann writes on his blog "Mere Light" as follows:

Perhaps the only benefit from this [Iraq] war is that its results are SO bad that it calls otherwise distant or even hostile groups to work together in search of a solution and a way past the current horrors. We must all work together to move forward toward a better world. People exploiting this cosmic misstep simply to attack Mr. Bush and his collaborators, or to pursue domestic or international political advantage, including through hearings to pin blame, are doing everyone a disservice, and all should keep track of who these people are. Electing or empowering such people will not make matters better. We must move past swinging this way or that in the vain imagination that one "side" or other can be correct in isolation.

Much has been made in the press about how polarized the U.S. public has become over various political and social issues. Is it possible that the dire implications of failure in Iraq will force us to work together for a solution and provide a beginning point toward a resolution of this seemingly intractable divide within our own society?

Stay tuned!

Hillary Clinton in Baghdad

One of the many distressing aspects of the current situation in Iraq is that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is beginning to appear downright presidential in comparison to ineffectual Bush administration officials and irresponsible Democratic leaders.

On Saturday, Clinton traveled to Baghdad for meetings with the Iraqi political leadership and U.S. commanders. She went on camera to say she was "skeptical" that the Iraqi government will fulfill its role in the new Bush strategy and characterised the overall situation in Iraq as "heartbreaking."

Other Democrats were criticising President Bush's strategy from the safety of congressional committee rooms and TV studios, but Clinton was there, on the ground. When she was filmed putting on body armor, it was not a Dukakis moment, because you knew that she was in an actual war zone.

I still have a lot of resistance to the idea of having another Clinton in the White House, but she is certainly demonstrating that she has what it takes to get there.

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.