When luck runs out
Two years ago I commented on the extraordinary luck of George W.Bush until then. Of course, a man's character is tested when luck begins to run out. Bush had not proved much of a leader until then - he had managed to make a void around himself, not only by his own actions but by the gratuituous rudeness of some of the people around him, and he had placed America in a very risky situation because of his serious overestimate of American strength. (I had something to say once or twice about the ridiculous superstition of the "only remaining superpower".) But everything up to the Iraqi general election had gone well, in spite of the evidence of a troubling lack of foresight, and it was his opponents who had always ended up looking carping and negative.
Now we see him when luck has run out; and frankly it ain't a pretty sight. The announcement that there are going to be talks with Syria and Iran - countries that have fought a proxy war against the USA without even troubling to disguise it very carefully - is a disaster. Nobody seeks talks with one's war enemies unless they are practically admitting defeat; and to seek it in the middle of a long-announced "surge" that was meant to reduce the pressure not only on the US but on the civilian Iraqi population is to send the message that victory against the mass-murdering, child-killing terrorist enemies is no longer expected. Of course, a few days earlier Tony Blair had announced the beginning of British withdrawal, stabbing Bush in the back (and recognizing implicitly the disastrous effect of his own leadership on the British armed forces, now no longer able to maintain two operations in Iraq and Afghanistan both). That had already sent the same message.
I am not a pacifist, and I originally supported both the wars against the Taliban and that against Saddam Hussein. I hated both regimes with a passion, and I wanted to see them gone so badly that I had even hoped in an Iranian invasion: even the Iranian mullahocracy seemed to me preferable to the obscene tyrannies of Mullah Omar and Saddam. But everything but the actual fighting was mismanaged from the beginning. I well remember saying, shortly after the conquest of Iraq (and long before I started this blog) that the invasion will only succeed in the long run if the Americans and their allies leave Iraq as fast as possible, because if they stay they will simply become the biggest set of hostages in the world - pure targets for enemy action. Well, they stayed; and in order to justify their staying - which was largely due to the complete collapse of any authority in Iraq, which in turn was due to the failure of the Americans to plan for after the victory - they came up with the idea of bringing US-style democracy to Iraq. Well, guess what: there was no government in Iraq - and there was none for a long time after - but there was an enemy left, powerful, subtle and ruthless. And as someone who knew a thing or two about war once said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
George W.Bush was lucky. He rode his luck for all it was worth. But in the end luck cannot make up for lack of judgment - everything from lowering taxes in wartime to honking off former friends with public insults. And when luck runs out, then we can measure the man.
Now we see him when luck has run out; and frankly it ain't a pretty sight. The announcement that there are going to be talks with Syria and Iran - countries that have fought a proxy war against the USA without even troubling to disguise it very carefully - is a disaster. Nobody seeks talks with one's war enemies unless they are practically admitting defeat; and to seek it in the middle of a long-announced "surge" that was meant to reduce the pressure not only on the US but on the civilian Iraqi population is to send the message that victory against the mass-murdering, child-killing terrorist enemies is no longer expected. Of course, a few days earlier Tony Blair had announced the beginning of British withdrawal, stabbing Bush in the back (and recognizing implicitly the disastrous effect of his own leadership on the British armed forces, now no longer able to maintain two operations in Iraq and Afghanistan both). That had already sent the same message.
I am not a pacifist, and I originally supported both the wars against the Taliban and that against Saddam Hussein. I hated both regimes with a passion, and I wanted to see them gone so badly that I had even hoped in an Iranian invasion: even the Iranian mullahocracy seemed to me preferable to the obscene tyrannies of Mullah Omar and Saddam. But everything but the actual fighting was mismanaged from the beginning. I well remember saying, shortly after the conquest of Iraq (and long before I started this blog) that the invasion will only succeed in the long run if the Americans and their allies leave Iraq as fast as possible, because if they stay they will simply become the biggest set of hostages in the world - pure targets for enemy action. Well, they stayed; and in order to justify their staying - which was largely due to the complete collapse of any authority in Iraq, which in turn was due to the failure of the Americans to plan for after the victory - they came up with the idea of bringing US-style democracy to Iraq. Well, guess what: there was no government in Iraq - and there was none for a long time after - but there was an enemy left, powerful, subtle and ruthless. And as someone who knew a thing or two about war once said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
George W.Bush was lucky. He rode his luck for all it was worth. But in the end luck cannot make up for lack of judgment - everything from lowering taxes in wartime to honking off former friends with public insults. And when luck runs out, then we can measure the man.