Winning at any cost

“Before we commit troops, there has to be a clear strategy.” Contrary to recent developments, U.S. military forces should never be sent on “vague, aimless and endless deployments.”

Those are not criticisms of the Iraq quagmire expressed by some wimpish, touchy-feely liberal, as Karl Rove has now characterized virtually all administration detractors. No, those words were issued by George W. Bush during the campaign of 2000.

One wonders at what point Mr. Bush decided that unclear, vague, aimless and endless deployments are actually good military policy. Perhaps they’re good when they seem -- “seem” being the operative word -- politically expedient. Or perhaps he still believes such deployments aren’t very smart, but hasn’t the foggiest notion of how to end one, stuck as he is in Tom Jefferson’s famous metaphor of the 1820 Missouri crisis: “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”

Or, perhaps Mr. Bush was simply willing to say anything to get elected, especially given his talent for focused-grouped soundbites, such as “The Clinton-Gore record cries out for a new sign on the Pentagon that says ‘Under New Management.’” And, more to the point, perhaps Bush never has possessed any real philosophy of geopolitics and related military matters. Perhaps, all along, his only philosophy has been one of envelope-pushing opportunism.

The earliest and most vivid evidence of this emerged in the same year he was running around the country inveighing against “endless deployments.” The following may seem a small piece of forgettable history, but looking back, it can also be seen as Bush’s leadership “philosophy” writ large.

In his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican convention, Bush told the world that “If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report -- ‘Not ready for duty, Sir.’” A rousing bit of oratory and a blistering indictment of Clinton-Gore mismanagement. One problem with his claim, however, was that it wasn’t true.

It is true, and by now well known, that Mr. Bush has a habit of making major speeches that are factually false. But a couple other items made his “not ready for duty” charge particularly shameful as well.

For starters, when the Pentagon objected, explaining that the readiness issue was only a minor and temporary redeployment matter blown far out of proportion -- even the Heritage Foundation confessed that Bush was “technically incorrect” -- candidate Bush, without even conceding the Pentagon’s correction, first (and almost unbelievably) blamed Clinton’s defense department for not letting him know. Later, he cynically implied that the Pentagon was playing pro-Gore politics.

Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in charge of military readiness under Ronald Reagan, attributed Bush’s comments to an amateur’s ignorance. Said Korb at the time, Bush’s remarks indicated that “he’s not conversant with these issues - not to know that those readiness reports are some of the most classified things.”

But was it amateurish ignorance -- or a deliberate falsehood unleashed in opposition to national security interests just to score political points? The question is a fair one, and one whose circumstances suggest their own answer.

Mr. Bush’s running mate, you’ll recall, was no amateur. He happened to be a vastly experienced politico and former U.S. secretary of defense who, well before the speech and with his eye on every campaign move, understood several fundamentals better than anybody: One, that the readiness report cited was being twisted for political reasons; two, that responsible presidential candidates don’t publicly discuss these reports; and three, that Bush would do precisely that at a televised event.

All of which demonstrated early on Bush & Co.’s cynical approach to politics, opportunistic disregard for the truth, and dangerous manipulation of national security issues.

The “not ready for duty” affair quickly evaporated in the media -- after all, we had Al Gore’s color choice of shirts to investigate -- though it was a remarkably transparent display of calculated recklessness.

In a whopper of psychological projection, Bush also said in 2000 that “[Gore’s] campaign attacks are designed to spread falsehood and cynicism. If you try to win at any cost, the price is high.” Most Americans now -- finally -- understand what Bush meant.

Comments

[Alan Charles]

While it might appear we have the Republicans on the ropes, I want to remind each of us #1, that we must not be premature in our celebrations, because every time this administration's polling numbers tank, we get another terrur alert and #2, unless we get our elected represenatives in Washington working on getting rid of those evoting machines that leave no paper trail, all our efforts will have been for naught. Remember, it's who counts the votes that counts.

[joe mama]

Your column needs a Part 2, to discuss where our military is at now, being overextended, and falling well short of recruitment goals. Not to mention the benefit cuts that this administration has passed.

[Tommy]

So how many divisions will report 'not ready for duty' now that Bush's invasion has sent recruitment numbers plummeting and morale spiraling downward?

How ready are we now, George?

[BURL STALEY]

BUSH IS AWAR PREIDENT HOW DARE ANYONE OBJECT TO THIS WAR AFTER ALL HE WAS ALMOST ANATIONAL GUARDSMAN JUST DIDNT HAVE TIME TO SERVE IN THAT CAPIACTY TOO BUSY DOWN AT THE WATERING HOLE LOCAL BAR

[George T. Karnezis]

I agree to keep the pressure on and one way to do that is to pay close attention to every word Bush and his homicidal maniacal cohorts have said, and then use those words against them. For instance, to day I heard that Bush said of Clinton's efforts in Bosnia that he should give a definite timeline for wirthdrawal. He needs to be quoted and pilloried, but the attack should avoid cynicism: we must come up with constructive suggestions.