Thursday, September 07, 2006
The new Lincoln?
Newt Gingrich does a respectable job attempting to compare George Bush and the war on terror to Abe Lincoln and that other skirmish fought over a different kind of freedom. Gingrich says that like Lincoln, Bush is facing three domestic factions among which he must choose: 1) Get out, 2) Keep slogging as we are, and 3) Increase the intensity of the fight.
He claims that the Bushies are failing for three reasons:
While the first two characterizations are, at least, open for debate, the failure to give metrics of achievement is an undeniable failure and a huge reason why Americans' interest in sustaining this fight is currently adrift. The only reliable measure of our success (or lack thereof) in the mid-east is the body count in Iraq. It's a number that simply cannot gauge success.
I'm not sure how it can be done, but we need to be given a success meter. Apparently, during the war in Afghanistan, the President had a chart with the pictures of leading Al-Qaida figures in his drawer. As one-by-one they were eliminated Mr. Bush crossed out that person's picture. I've got the Sharpee Mr. President, could we make a really big version of your chart?
He claims that the Bushies are failing for three reasons:
(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.
While the first two characterizations are, at least, open for debate, the failure to give metrics of achievement is an undeniable failure and a huge reason why Americans' interest in sustaining this fight is currently adrift. The only reliable measure of our success (or lack thereof) in the mid-east is the body count in Iraq. It's a number that simply cannot gauge success.
I'm not sure how it can be done, but we need to be given a success meter. Apparently, during the war in Afghanistan, the President had a chart with the pictures of leading Al-Qaida figures in his drawer. As one-by-one they were eliminated Mr. Bush crossed out that person's picture. I've got the Sharpee Mr. President, could we make a really big version of your chart?
Comments:
<< Home
I think you hit on it when you say: "The problem is as much that without a more defined enemy and more defined goals the media can ignore any accomplishments made by our armed forces and our intelligence officials."
Although, the nebulous enemy could be a political strategy as well. So long as we haven't defined victory or success we also haven't defined an end-point. In that regard, so long as the war on terror is a positive for R's in the polls, it is best for R's to make sure it has no end.
I believe, however, that fatigue becomes a factor rather soon.
Post a Comment
Although, the nebulous enemy could be a political strategy as well. So long as we haven't defined victory or success we also haven't defined an end-point. In that regard, so long as the war on terror is a positive for R's in the polls, it is best for R's to make sure it has no end.
I believe, however, that fatigue becomes a factor rather soon.
<< Home
