Log In | Register
Although it had its share of leaks, the last administration expended a lot of effort to keep its decision-making machinery operating quietly and, more or less, in secret. The message that was usually delivered to the media and the news-consuming public was monolithic and unvarying, and as a consequence the Bush White House was often castigated for being at all times "on message," unencumbered by facts.
Obama promised change, and change is what we are getting, including the way in which policy is formulated. Whether by design or default, the uncoordinated gyrations of executive machinery in need of a major tune-up and lube job is visible for all to see. What we are observing is certainly change, but it is far from reassuring.
Even this early in Obama's tenure, there are many examples of fragmented leadership, but two are easily the most glaring. Reforming the health care system ("system" gives it too much credit, doesn't it?), while absolutely essential, was launched with more hope than sense and laced with the naivete one usually sees only among those running for office in secondary school. When a health care bill finally becomes law, it will be less a change than it will be an affirmation of the current system's inadequacies.
But more distressing is the public display that passes for making policy about the war. The dramatis personae in the most recent spectacle include: Stanley McChrystal, as the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan; Joseph Biden, as the Vice President; Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State; and Barack Obama, as the President.
President Obama has stated several times that he is awaiting analysis and recommendations from McChrystal before making a decision on our strategy in Afghanistan. He doesn't have to wait. General McChrystal's stark conclusion was already leaked: he needs more troops or the effort will fail. Several days later, Vice President Biden suggested that the military's concept was flawed and announced his strategic idea: spend all resources to destroy al-Qaeda, even in Pakistan, and forget about the Taliban. Shortly after that, Secretary Clinton suggested that Biden didn't know what he was talking about. The act ended with the president reiterating that he was still unsure of what the strategy should be.
Obama inherited a mess that was not of his making, one that includes problems in south and southwest Asia that are dangerous and complicated. Solving them requires careful anaysis and decisive, coordinated execution that uses all the means of national power, not just the military establishment. But objectives are not best reached by the vehicle of noisy, ill-informed and very public executive squabbling. And then for the president to insist that he still does not yet know what to do---well, this generates even less confidence that the current crew is better able to protect American interests than the last one.
It may come as a shock to some people that the military has a very liberal attitude toward dissent. Leaders are taught at their earliest training that, before the final decision is reached, they have an obligation to offer their best judgment, even if it is contrary to conventional wisdom, the commander's guidance or political expedience. The Obama administration, it appears, has adopted this superb method of extracting the wide range of solutions that always attend a problem. But it seems also to have decided to conduct the entire process in such a way that displays all the principals as independent contractors. From this, we'll get a lively discussion and some pretty good news items, but we will not get coherent policy.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
I advocate nothing of the kind. My advice is that one should expect very little in the way of justice in a procedure that is not designed to administer it.
