“Lead” to win or “Manage” to Defeat

A perennial favorite topic of the business press is that of the difference between “leadership” and “management.” Typically both are attributed as absolutely necessary to an organization’s success, but requiring very different sets of talents. I was reminded of this debate by the prevailing democratic talking point of the past few weeks which seems to be “Bush mismanaged the war!”

The “mismanaged” slogan I think highlights a profound difference between the way different groups in this country approach the difficult and grueling task of actually winning a war. History would teach us; it seems to me, that victories are “lead,” while defeats are the result of an attempt to “manage.” Sure it’s a total bastardization of the leadership vs. management debate, and perhaps an over simplified view of warfare, but I think it’s an interesting view of how our various “leaders” approach this issue.

One thing that I continually fault the Bush administration on is allowing the Democrats to set the stage for the debate around the war in Iraq. Instead of a political establishment that is arguing constructively how to win the war and build Iraq, the topic of the most argument is exactly when U.S. forces will leave. Essentially you’ve got the “get out now crowd,” the “give us a timetable to withdraw ‘honorably’” crowd, and then everyone else. People arguing that we should withdraw with “honor,” are basically arguing that we can’t win and that we should find a way to get out without the bad news footage equivalent of the last helicopter leaving Saigon in 1973. The only honorable course is to do what we say we’re going to do no matter how long it takes.

The loudest opposition voices out there today are the voices of defeat. Democratic national Chairman Howard Dean was quoted yesterday as saying, “(the) idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” What he’s really saying is that he doesn’t believe in the United States ability (or will) to win. Of course, that didn’t stop him from going on to say,

“I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.”

Wow, when I think of someone who will “mange” the war correctly, I think of a M.D. from Vermont! Not. Sarcasm aside, serious Democrats’ stomachs must turn somersaults when they hear their bomb-throwing Chairman speak. Every other thing out of his mouth is a “Bush lied” conspiracy.

When you think of unsuccessful U.S. military conflicts like Vietnam or Korea (okay, that was a tie), what do you think of? Many people think of major interference (i.e. “management”) from Washington D.C. Truman fired McArthur for trying to win the Korean war. Most criticism of Robert McNamara was that he micromanaged the fighting of the Vietnam war. Nixon had his fingers all over the bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia as if he were a field commander.

In contrast, successful undertakings by the United States in the last century were the result of great acts of leadership. FDR and Winston Churchill led us to victory in World War II. Ronald Reagan led us to victory in the cold war. (I’m leaving out WWI, yes it was a big deal, but direct U.S. involvement was much shorter than even our current stint in Iraq). In each of these victories, these leaders made their primary role one leadership. The first job of “leadership” is to set the vision of a successful outcome. FDR, Churchill and Reagan all called out the enemy for what they were, they defined success, and they harped on it over and over again. They all took part in the management piece of these efforts, but each delegated the real “management” of war efforts to their military leaders. Very “Lincolnesqe.”

I’m left to wonder what an appropriate battle cry might be for “mismanaged war” crowd. Perhaps, “Remember _We Lost_ at the Alamo!” The fact that as a country we’re spending so much time arguing about when to get out is completely the wrong focus. The United States is the single super power in the world. It _should_ go without saying that we have the will to complete efforts we take on. The Bush Administration should continually reframe the debate around “what’s the best way to win?”

She's no Bill

I’m continually baffled as to why Hillary Clinton is referred to as the far-and-away frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. Yes, I understand her celebrity and, sure I appreciate the novelty of having a candidate who used to be the first lady. But really…are Democrats really thinking through what they’re getting when they anoint her as their favorite-son (daughter)?

It wouldn’t be the first time a candidate road the coattails of a popular President to win their party’s nomination (you listening Bush 41?), but I wonder if the “Clinton” mystique is getting ready to hit a brick wall. By all accounts Bill Clinton has an uncanny ability to connect with virtually anyone he meets. It is said that in a conversation with President Clinton he makes you feel as if the whole world is about you. Honestly, pudgy, middle-aged white guys do not get the title “America’s first black President,” without "mad" interpersonal skills.

Other than the celebrity, I just don’t see what it is about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that makes Democrats swoon. Okay, yes, I’m biased. Based on her stated beliefs I think her policies would be a total disaster for the United States. But trying to be objective, and looking at just the basics, just exactly what kind of candidate do they have.

She’s Polarizing – Hillary Clinton is possibly one of the most polarizing political figures in America today. Hillary is to conservatives what “W” is to Moveon.org. You either love her or you hate her. Bill Clinton was able to bring out the moderate votes, in fact, he based much of his first campaign on being a pro-business moderate Democrat. Heck, I voted for him (the first time).

She’s a New York Liberal - She may hail from Arkansas, but she wasted no time in knocking the dust off those boots as soon as Bill was out of office. To get elected as a Democrat way back to LBJ you needed some Southern “street cred,” and she forfeited that when she moved to New York state to run for Senate. People with that liberal tag don’t do well in the presidential election. Sure, she’d win New York state in a landslide (provided Rudy doesn’t run), California, and of course Minnesota, among others, but everywhere else she is a “New Yawk Liberal,” with all the connotations that come with it.

She’s a Senator - I always bring this one up. We don’t hire too many Senators in this country to be the Commander-in-Chief. The last President who was a Senator was Lyndon B. Johnson, but of course the last one we actually elected was John F. Kennedy. I think John Kerry was the perfect example of why we reject congressman as Presidential candidates. Who ever knew what the guy was talking about? The Senate is an old boys club that is run by obscure rules of order known mostly to themselves. If you don’t believe me, read the great book on LBJ called Master of the Senate. Senators “do” less and “argue in circles” more. We’re Americans and we want a “doer!”

She’s a woman – In my opinion the United States absolutely IS ready for a female commander in chief. I’m not just being egalitarian by saying so either. And certainly no one thinks of Hillary as a soft, “Holly Hobby” homemaker type. However, I do question whether her “toughness” will play in Peoria. I can see soccer moms coming out to vote for her (despite the “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” comment), but I do have a hard time seeing “NASCAR dads” coming out to vote for her. Despite her recent attempts to look tough and be strong supporter of the Military , I think she’ll have a perception of softness hurdle to get over – which I honestly think would unfairly be put against any woman candidate. I do think of Hillary as tough (if misguided), and I do think she would apply military force as commander in chief. I just always think of our first woman president as more an Iron Lady type.

She’s not Bill – As I mentioned up above, Hillary doesn’t have the magic touch the way Bill does. They call him “The Natural” after all. I’m not suggesting that you have to be overly gifted in this way to get elected, but I wonder if there’s some transference going on here where all her admirers think they’re going to get the Bill Clinton touch.

She stands for what?– To be a leader you have to stand for something. For the life of me I don’t know what Hillary stands for yet. I’m certain she’ll put something together as part of a formal campaign, but so far all I get is…“because she’s Hillary!” That might work to her advantage in far-left circles, but last time I checked you had to appeal to the middle to win the Electoral College. I’m just looking forward to hear what she stands for. Is it the same as Bill Clinton or does she have her own philosophy, and if so, how are they different?

Doesn’t anyone else just want “new blood” in the White House? I’ve said the same thing about the Bushes as the Clintons – In a country of 300 million citizens; can we really not find a few candidates who are NOT a direct relation of a former President? I’m sure some will argue (again) that it’s a two-for-one deal – elect Hillary and get Bill to boot! You know what, I’ll pass.

My personal bet this early in the nomination race is Joe Biden . The guy never fails to drive me nuts when he’s on the talking head shows, but he’s smart, he’s tough, and I think he’d make a formidable opponent to the open Republican field (and yes, I know he's a Senator). John Kerry will run again, but to steal a Dennis Miller line, he’s going to get “stomped like a Narc at a biker rally!”

'Cut and run' would be the wrong answer

I was asked to respond to an article in The Atlantic magazine entitled “Why Iraq has No Army,” by James Fallows. (FYI- I’m linking to it, but the link may only be good to non-subscribers for a few days). Incidentally, this article was also sited on Meet the Press this morning when Tim Russert asked for a response to the article from Senator John McCain.

I love Tim Russert, but he seems to harp incessantly on mistakes made in the execution of the war. Certainly one of the primary purposes of the fourth estate is to do juts that, but he seems to revisit it over and over with every guest. This morning he asked Senator McCain (I’m paraphrasing), “One of the misjudgments made was that we would be greeted as liberators. Then the cost of the war, --- and then required troop levels – three fundamental misjudgments by the administration, is that fair? ”

McCain’s answer was that it was fair. Sometimes I feel like the there’s this opinion out there that says to the administration “you should have planned for everything. You should have anticipated everything that might have happened and planned for it.” Never mind that we were confronting what we believed to be a clear and present danger that needed to be addressed immediately. Has there ever been a war plan that worked out exactly as planned…ever? Where are these “perfect world” standards coming from that a war is the equivalent of a math proof that can just be worked out with enough elbow grease?

Earlier in the interview Russert asked Senator McCain for a reaction to the following quote from the Article in the Atlantic:

“In short, if American troops disappeared tomorrow, Iraq would have essentially no independent security force. Half its policemen would be considered worthless, and the other half would depend on external help for organization, direction, support. Two thirds of the army would be in the same dependent position, and even the better-prepared one third would suffer significant limitations without foreign help."

“The moment when Iraqis can lift much of the burden from American troops is not yet in sight. --- Measured against what it would take to leave Iraqis fully in charge of their own security, the United States and the Iraqi government are losing ground. Absent a dramatic change—in the insurgency, in American efforts, in resolving political differences in Iraq—America's options will grow worse, not better, as time goes on.”

I think this was a good summary quote from what James Fallows advocates in this long twenty page article, but I’m not sure it tells all of Fallows' story. Senator McCain, probably hearing the quote for the first time, felt obligated to take it as an estimation that there was little or no progress happening, and to respectfully disagree with Fallows.

I found Fallows article to be a well told list of the mistakes made and the many the challenges to succeeding in Iraq, but also a description of the beginnings of progress in training Iraqi security forces. Clearly there have been plenty of mistakes and clearly there are many things the U.S. can improve and recommit to in order to ensure success.

At the same time, I think Fallows touches on what’s really important when he quotes General Petraeus on the importance of training Iraqi forces:

“The enemy recognizes that if Iraqi security forces ever really get traction, they are in trouble. So all of this (training) is done in the most challenging environment imaginable."

And later Fallows makes a conclusion similar to what I said the other day (that we’re not leaving anytime soon):

“Based on these interviews, I have come to this sobering conclusion: the United States can best train Iraqis, and therefore best help itself leave Iraq, only by making certain very long-term commitments to stay.”

In the end it is difficult to know who to believe on the current progress of training for Iraqi defense forces. I was listening to Rush this past week and he replayed Mary Matalin dressing down John Kerry on the Today show about this very topic. Her pronouncements of Iraqi security force readiness make it sound like massive progress is being made—and certainly echoed the end of the Fallows article (in spots). With nothing but partisan assessments one way or the other as inputs, how is average Joe citizen supposed to form an opinion?

For me it comes down to which side is doing a better job at confronting reality. We can’t just leave. We have to stay. In this morning’s interview Tim Russert asked Senator McCain if the situation is the same in six months as it is today, would he advocate a timeline for our pullout from Iraq. McCain responded with the following (good thing Tivo let’s me rewind!)

“I would say that we would have to evaluate our strategy, but We would also have to consider the consequences of failure. If we fail….don’t take my word for it, take Zarqowi’s-- Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s version of history is, we were driven out of Vietnam, we were driven out of Lebanon, we were driven out of Somalia , and they’re going to go after us and the United States of America, ---now that’s not my saying, that’s what they’re saying, this is why so much is at stake here. This is why I made the controversial statement that this is more important than Vietnam. The Vietnamese weren’t going to come after us, these people are dedicated to our extinction.”

I think that McCain’s response was the right one. It is imperative that we stand our ground and build a democratic Iraq. The insurgents know what is at stake, and are showing that in the way they’re fighting. I think those, like McCain, which are proponents of making Iraq a real victory, and not prematurely pulling out of that country, also understand what is really at stake.

Maybe we should just say that the U.S. will never leave

I’m starting to wonder if the right approach in Iraq would be to just openly say that the U.S. doesn’t ever plan to leave. Sixty years after World War II, the United States is just over the past few years ratcheting down its military presence in Germany. What’s the rush to get out of Iraq?

Democrats who continually harp that we “must know when” troops are coming home are guilty of playing politics with human lives. These people cannot possibly really believe that publishing a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals is anything other than conceding defeat. Instead they are yelling this from the rooftops because they know the American electorate is feeling unsure about the efforts in Iraq. They are doing nothing more than trying to weaken the power of a President from an opposing party, and in doing so they’re sending a message that the Unites States is weak.

Defeatists on both sides of the aisle openly doubt whether a free democratic state in the Middle East is even possible. To doubt that all humans yearn to be free is short-sighted, foolish, and its base, frankly, racist. The freedom of thought, movement, and self-expression that we enjoy in the United States is the exact source of this country's political, economic, and moral power. Every human heart yearns for respect and appreciation of one’s unique persona. Achieving that feeling is simply not possible for the citizens of authoritarian or totalitarian controlled countries. The United States should always stand for freedom and liberty, and for elected officials to actually discredit the existence of a people’s potential to be free is…well, un-American.

A democratic state in the Middle East is a just cause. Argue all you like whether the argument for this war was right in the first place, what we are now working to accomplish is a noble effort. Saddam Hussein is one of the world’s most notorious murderers, responsible for close to two million deaths. How is it that the world is not a better place with this butcher taken from power? How is it that a free state in the heart of the oppressed Middle East would not be a victory for the entire human race?

In an uncertain world filled with new dangers, it is clear that all eyes are on the actions of the United States. The United States congressmen nipping at the President’s Iraq policy based on the American public’s current lack of confidence are nothing more than political opportunists. They would better serve their constituents, and the world, by showing the patience, the resolve, and the backbone that George W. Bush has. It is through continued actions that the U.S. proves to the world that we stand for freedom, and that we will always be prepared to defend it.

The Gipper would blog…

People always call out Ronald Reagan’s abilities as the “Great Communicator” as the source of his effectiveness in office. This is certainly one of the qualities that enabled him to accomplish the many things that he did, but I think what is more important was that Ronald Reagan knew unequivocally what it was that he stood for. Unlike most all other politicians, Reagan worked tirelessly to research, think, and record his thoughts on virtually all topics in the public eye, from world peace, to nuclear energy, to the economy, social security, as well as numerous personal stories.

The thing I like about blogging (so far) is that as the author you do it for yourself as much as you do for anyone else. Writing things down helps you think through issues and crystallize your thinking. The fact that someone out there (admittedly few) might read it makes you think that much more about what you're writing. Given the volume of written material by President Reagan that has been published since his passing, it is clear that a regular forum for expressing his ideas was something he appreciated. Which is why I hypothesize that if he were alive and active today, the Gipper would blog.

In 1975, and then again from 1976 until he ran for President a second time in 1979, Ronald Reagan wrote and presented a daily radio commentary on all of the topics I mentioned above and more (the first pause was to challenge Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1975). Each commentary had a one sentence teaser, and was followed by a three minute monologue which Reagan would write out long hand on a legal pad.

Many of these commentaries are collected in the book Reagan, In his Own Hand; however, if you really want the best experience, I strongly suggest listening to the collection in audio form, which includes Reagan’s actual recordings, entitled Reagan, In his Own Voice. (They are the same thing, just one has the actual recordings. I own both…of course!)

Whether read or listened to, these commentaries are sheer gold. Critics of Reagan long chided him as a simple minded actor. Diplomat Clark Clifford famously quipped after meeting Reagan that he was, “an amiable dunce.” Since Clifford isn’t really notable for much else other than this comment, it goes a long way towards showing who was the lesser of the two men.

What astounds me is that through listening to these commentaries and reading his biweekly newspaper columns, Ronald Reagan told the American people exactly what it was he believed. It was estimated that through the radio show and the columns Reagan was able to reach close to 20 million Americans each week. Moreover, if you look at his administration you’ll see that this man took on a course to do exactly the things he stood up for in his writings.

When else in American history, or world history for that matter, has a leader written so profusely in his own hand exactly the things he stood for and then made them so widely known? Ronald Reagan shaped his beliefs over years and years of writing out his thoughts on paper, either in letters, for publication, or for personal use. He literally created his political self on paper and then changed the course of human history because he wrote down what he thought. These radio commentaries are a treasure trove of his thinking right up until he became the leader of the free world.

I’ll sign off using Reagan’s tagline (but with my name of course).

“This is Mike Ditson, thanks for listening.”