“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?”