Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The "no hard choices" presidency.
Gideon Rachman writes about Iraq:
This, more than anything, is what makes Bush a weak leader. A strong leader would be ready to make hard choices. Bush avoids them, and increasingly surrounds himself with people who will not tell him anything he does not want to hear.
Looking back on the Iraq misadventure it seems the neo-cons were not as free of liberal wishful thinking as they fondly imagined. Their big mistake was grossly to overestimate how easy it would be to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. That error was compounded by a naive faith that the democratisation of the Middle East would serve American interests. Proclaiming his neo-con-inspired "freedom agenda" for global democratisation, George W. Bush, US president, said that: "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."Sounds like the President's domestic policy, with its combination of big tax cuts and increases in spending. The hallmark of the Bush presidency is the refusal to make hard choices -- to try, always, to have your cake and eat it too.
The "freedom agenda" is seductive because it holds out the prospect of abolishing the uncomfortable moral choices associated with Kissingerian realpolitik. It is the equivalent of women's magazines that proclaim: "you can have it all": you can balance a high-pressure career and kids; you can invade a country and have the inhabitants greet you with rose petals; you can destabilize a despotic ally and be sure the new regime will be even more friendly to American interests.
This, more than anything, is what makes Bush a weak leader. A strong leader would be ready to make hard choices. Bush avoids them, and increasingly surrounds himself with people who will not tell him anything he does not want to hear.
Comments:
<< Home
Exactly. Also: you can invade and occupy a country without imposing the draft or degrading your military effectiveness! No, really!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]