When President Bush authorized the invasion of Afghanistan, a significant majority of Americans supported the decision. When he did the same in Iraq, he still had the majority behind him, although not in as great a number.
Some people equate leadership on the international scene to the ability to get the leaders of other countries to go along. That’s not leadership. It’s diplomacy. Bill Clinton was pretty good at that. But remember, he couldn’t get the UN to agree to an invasion of Kosovo. Instead, he used NATO, where France has no voice in military decisions.
Clinton showed no leadership in many things. He was a follower, heeding the whims of his constituency. That made him very popular. And popularity was more important to him than leading.
When Bush decided to ignore Germany, France, and Russia and oust Saddam Hussein, he took a tremendous political risk. People tend to forget that. Fact. He had no real idea how bad it might turn out, although the final result was assured. A huge refugee crisis was predicted. There were expectations Hussein might throw missiles at Israel as he did in 1991, this time tipped with nasty things. He might fire a barrage of chemical artillery weapons at our troops, or set off massive biological contamination when it was obvious he was defeated. This was a legitimate concern. When I went to Kuwait last May, we were issued chemical warfare clothing and the soldiers at Arifjan had been alerted many times prior to our arrival.
With all these unknowns, Bush took the risk because it was necessary. Leadership.
John Podhoretz believes Bush is still doing it:
In other words, he is betting his presidency on the soundness of his approach and its prospects for success.
My impression of Bush intially was that he was more interested in doing what is right whether he got reelected or not. It is a bold stand for a politician. Few consider doing what is right in an election year, banking on popularity to get reelected. We see this in Kerry, who says what he feels he needs to say to the audience at hand. Clinton was a master at it, but Kerry can’t pull it off.
Bush doesn’t even attempt to do it, and that’s what makes him a leader.
As Den Beste always says, “It’s more important what you stand for than who you stand with.”
Comment by Sarah — May 26, 2004 @ 3:32 am
All well taken. But this part is troublesome:
Is it leadership to gamble like that with the innocent citizens of _another country_? “Well, we /expect/ Hussein might kill a few hundred of our soldiers, and MILLIONS of Israelis with a nuke or chemicals, but I’m willing to take that chance.” Hmmm.
Maybe I just don’t have a strong enough stomach for that kind of horrible scenario. And Israel’s leadership was probably just as willing to take that chance to reap the reward of no more Hussein regime…
Comment by Bogey — May 26, 2004 @ 7:11 am
I doubt he made the move without consulting with all friendlies in the area. My guess is that Sharon would welcome an attack as an excuse to end the Intifada permanently.
Comment by Bunker — May 26, 2004 @ 11:35 am