Pacific Views

Bad Bush Decisions

I first wrote this post for the Watch in April, but thought it has some interesting relevance now because now the infighting of the Bush foreign policy team has become obvious to everyone. Bush does not control his government, yet I believe he must still be held accountable for what happens under his watch.

The Washington Post story, Advisers Split as War Unfolds, reminded me of a piece that I had read by Digby a while back. The WaPo story reported that people within the White House are complaining that Bush is getting some "bum advice". Really? Actually, the real problem appears to be that Bush is incapable of making good decisions when his advisors don't agree.

Administration officials are generally close-mouthed about their discussions and officially insist there is unity among Bush's senior national security advisers. But they also acknowledge that within this administration disputes among senior Cabinet officials are never really settled. With war now under way, the stakes in the debate over Iraq are much higher, affecting not only the course of the conflict but the world's acceptance of the U.S. invasion and its aftermath.

Originally, having strong advisors seemed necessary for people to believe there was an adult in charge, and so Dick Cheney was marched out to lend gravitas to the administration of George W Bush. But after 9/11, the story changed and Bush no longer needed a chaperone, but now was shown to be firmly in charge.

The example of the Bush as a strong and capable manager was most clearly spelled out in Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War.

Perhaps most compelling is the portrait the book paints of Bush himself, a picture brought into sharper focus by lengthy one-on-one interviews Woodward conducted with the president. Unlike Bush's critics, who see the president as a neophyte lightweight parroting the views of his seasoned advisers, Woodward portrays Bush as a commander in chief, truly in command.

He is the one talking of the need to be decisive, of inflicting real pain on the enemy and not just bombing tents in the desert. He is the one showing impatience at the indecision of the military planners, principally Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, CIA chief George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as they tried to formulate a course of action.

The clear intent is to show that Bush makes the decisions. But, Bush's decisions are based on the input of his advisers, not on his own analysis or deep thought. So, Digby asked, yes, he has some strong advisors, but what happens when they don't agree?

So, the value of having these strong "division" chiefs to whom the president would delegate and "hold accountable" was set forth to answer the criticism that George W. Bush was too inexperienced and intellectually shallow to run the most powerful country in the world. We were to be simultaneously impressed with his humility in choosing far more qualified people than himself to advise him and comforted that these uber-advisors would give him the best guidance the country could provide. These broad-shouldered, square-jawed corporate superheroes would work in their separate spheres with singleminded ambition, motivated by their shared vision of a strong, wealthy compassionate nation, where empowered individuals would singlehandedly replace an ossified bureaucracy through sheer talent and hard work.

Needless to say, this is childish nonsense, whether as a fantasy of corporate ethos and practice or a reading of human nature in general. It is clear that the single most basic function of the U.S. President is choosing amongst the competing power centers of various advisors, competitors, ideologues and special interests whose egos, agendas, commitments and beliefs often conflict.

This was a remarkably insightful question on Digby's part, especially as we see it play out before us.

John Dean also points out this leadership flaw in Bush.

For example, Woodward reports that when disagreements arise within Bush's war council - as they have, for example, between the CIA and the Defense Department - Bush does not pursue the disagreement to settle it. Rather he turns to his able national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and instructs, "Get this mess straightened out."

Making trade-offs between different choices is indeed one of the most difficult jobs for those in charge. Much has been made of the fact that Bush is the first MBA president and thus trained in the business of making hard decisions. But one should note is that the business scandals of last year also came from the ranks of the MBAs. Does an MBA provide a good basis for making sound ethical decisions? Not necessarily, and surveys show that earning an MBA can actually diminish the understanding of what is right or good for society.

And what is abundantly clear is that students' sense of social responsibility decreases as they go through their MBA programme. At the beginning they may view the corporate world through the eyes of a consumer but once into the programme their perspective changes to that of a shareholder.

Like his good friend, Ken Lay of Enron, Bush has been very good at maximizing the value for his shareholders, but not so good at weighing the consequences for society. Bush's management style and attraction to risk created a big part of the problem we see today. Lacking a strong sense of right and wrong, attracted to the boldest, most reckless choices, Bush has chosen a war that has cast the world into a frightening, and unstable future, and he is ultimately responsible for the power he put in hands of the war-lovers and the mistakes made on his watch.

Posted by Mary at October 25, 2003 12:51 PM | TrackBack