Pusillanimity?
Cockeyed optimist vs. Clear-eyed skeptic?
No surprises here, I'm sure, but I think the skeptics have the stronger case. It's not a matter of whose predictions will end up coming to pass, or whose predictions will be closer to what comes to pass. I don't care who wins that contest. I've got no predictions of my own. But I don't see how anyone, looking over the events of this past year, can truly believe that the US has had a single, sound, cohesive, morally coherent, well-conceived policy all along. To the "rope-a-dopers," every blunder, every instance of apparent backtracking, inconsistency, or appeasement, every creative new attempt to redefine the goal as something short of victory, every incident embodying what looks like failure of nerve or lack of seriousness about the war is supposed to be some kind of feint or deliberate diversion. The crazier our behavior, the more brilliant the hidden, underlying plan is supposed to be. Being smart, subtle, deliberate, flexible, cagey, prudent-- I'm all for it, and I'm sure that's part of what's going on. But is it the entire explanation? It seems unlikely.
Reading the newspaper these days, it sometimes seems as though practically every other item ought to be subtitled "this is no way to run a war." The administration seems to have been trying a little of everything, playing for time, undecided as to what should be done. Despite periodic outbursts of bellicose faux-Churchillian "we shall not falter" rhetoric, the President has been shying away from risk, hedging his bets by trying to please everyone just a little, and stalling, putting off the decision to act. Faltering. I don't see how this conclusion can be avoided. In this, it must be allowed, GWB is little different than the previous two occupants of the White House. But we need something better than that.
It's a complicated matter, and the decisions are tough ones. I don't envy those who have to make them. They can't be put off forever. I'm sure Stephen Green is right that they won't be, and that when the US finally does act it will be overwhelming and effective. Yet Bill Quick is right that all this pussy-footing around has not been without its costs. Remember all the ballyhoo about "moral clarity?" Even Michael Kelly doesn't write Moral Clarity columns anymore.
Maybe "moral clarity" was always a fatuous conceit, as the Europeans always claimed. Or maybe it is a luxury we can no longer afford. Maybe we're better off with "realism," with prudence (qua prudence) as our guiding light, stability as our goal. Yet, even in utterly practical terms, when "regime change" became disarmament, when casus belli gave way to "trust but verify," I'd say that was a small but substantive win for the axis of evil. Perhaps all that is just a rhetorical smokescreen for the consumption of those who enjoy or require such a smokescreen, not to be taken literally or seriously. Perhaps muddying the waters a bit is the only way of securing the approval of the "international community," and perhaps this approval really is vital to the success of the eventual campaign and must be courted at all costs. Perhaps. But we shouldn't kid ourselves: delay serves the interests of only one of the principal parties, and it ain't us.
Saddam will get his comeuppance one way or another, I'm sure, but I believe he sees US sabre-rattling, troop movements, UN resolutions, etc., as little more than a complex of empty gestures and idle threats. He thinks he can ride this one out, as he has in the past. Ultimately, I don't think he's right, but he may be. How many more "last chances" he will get, how many more "final stages" there will be, remains to be seen. As it stands, though, US aims, interests, and security are severely hampered by the fact that its enemies do not take its threats very seriously. There is only one way to change that. And if you think I'm talking about securing a grudging acquiescence from the French to an arms control exercise, you're mistaken.
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 21, 2002 08:47 AM | TrackBack