The Bush Legacy: Lessons

In the Post, Bob Woodward, author of four books on President Bush -- "Bush at War," "Plan of Attack," "State of Denial" and "The War Within," provides 10 lessons that Obama and his team should take away from the Bush experience.

1. Presidents set the tone. Don't be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.

Instead of a team of rivals, Bush wound up with a team of back-stabbers with long-running, poisonous disagreements about foreign policy fundamentals.

2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even -- or especially -- when there are vehement disagreements.

Powell was right that to conclude that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did not work together. But Cheney and Powell did not have this crucial debate in front of the president -- even though such a discussion might have undermined one key reason for war. Cheney provided private advice to the president, but he was rarely asked to argue with others and test his case… This sort of derision undermined the administration's unity of purpose -- and suggests the nasty tone that can emerge when open debate is stifled by long-running feuds and personal hostility.

3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.

The president should not micromanage, but understanding the ramifications of his positions cannot be outsourced to anyone.

4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure bad news makes it to the Oval Office.

Bush sometimes assumed he knew his aides' private views without asking them one-on-one. He made probably the most important decision of his presidency -- whether to invade Iraq -- without directly asking Powell, Rumsfeld or CIA Director George J. Tenet for their bottom-line recommendation. (Instead of consulting his own father, former president George H.W. Bush, who had gone to war in 1991 to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, the younger Bush told me that he had appealed to a "higher father" for strength.)

5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt.

Presidents and generals don't have to live on doubt. But they should learn to love it. "You should not be the parrot on the secretary's shoulder," said Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama's incoming national security adviser, to his old friend Gen. Peter Pace, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- a group Jones thought had been "systematically emasculated by Rumsfeld." Doubt is not the enemy of good policy; it can help leaders evaluate alternatives, handle big decisions and later make course corrections if necessary.

6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.

In 2004-06, the CIA was reporting that Iraq was getting more violent and less stable. By mid-2006, Bush's own NSC deputy for Iraq, Meghan O'Sullivan, had a blunt assessment of conditions in Baghdad: "It's hell, Mr. President." But the Pentagon remained optimistic and reported that a strategy of drawing down U.S. troops and turning security over to the Iraqis would end in "self-reliance" in 2009. As best I could discover, the president never insisted that the contradiction between "hell" and "self-reliance" be resolved.

7. Presidents must tell the hard truth to the public, even if that means delivering very bad news.

For years after the Iraq invasion, Bush consistently offered upbeat public assessments. That went well beyond the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner that he admitted last Monday had been a mistake. "Absolutely, we're winning," the president said during an October 2006 news conference. "We're winning." His confident remarks came during one of the lowest points of the war, at a time when anyone with a TV screen knew that the war was going badly. On Feb. 5, 2005, as he was moving up from his first-term role as Rice's deputy to become national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley had offered a private, confidential assessment of the problems of Bush's Iraq-dominated first term. "I give us a B-minus for policy development," he said, "and a D-minus for policy execution." The president later told me that he knew that the Iraq "strategy wasn't working." So how could the United States be winning a war with a failing strategy?

8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.

"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told me in late 2003. I believe he truly wanted to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. In preparing his second inaugural address in 2005, for example, Bush told his chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, "The future of America and the security of America depends on the spread of liberty." That got the idealistic Gerson so pumped that he set out to produce the foreign policy equivalent to Albert Einstein's unified field theory of the universe -- a 17-minute inaugural address in which the president said his goal was nothing less than "the ending of tyranny in our world."

But this high purpose often blinded Bush and his aides to the consequences of this mad dash to democracy. In 2005, for example, Bush and his war cabinet spent much of their time promoting free elections in Iraq -- which wound up highlighting the isolation of the minority Sunnis and setting the stage for the raging sectarian violence of 2006.

9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking.

Only the president (and perhaps the national security adviser) can prod a reactive bureaucracy to think about where the administration should be in one, two or four years. Then detailed, step-by-step tactical plans must be devised to try to get there. It's easy for an administration to become consumed with putting out brush fires, which often requires presidential involvement. (Ask Obama how much time he's been spending on the Gaza war.) But a president will probably be judged by the success of his long-range plans, not his daily crisis management.

10. The president should embrace transparency. Some version of the behind-the-scenes story of what happened in his White House will always make it out to the public -- and everyone will be better off if that version is as accurate as possible.

On March 8, 2008, Hadley made an extraordinary remark about how difficult it has proven to understand the real way Bush made decisions. "He will talk with great authority and assertiveness," Hadley said. " 'This is what we're going to do.' And he won't mean it. Because he will not have gone through the considered process where he finally is prepared to say, 'I've decided.' And if you write all those things down and historians get them, [they] say, 'Well, he decided on this day to do such and such.' It's not true. It's not history. It's a fact, but it's a misleading fact."

Presidents should beware of such "misleading facts." They should run an internal, candid process of debate and discussion with key advisers that will make sense when it surfaces later. This sort of inside account will be told, at least in part, during the presidency. But the best obtainable version will emerge more slowly, over time, and become history.

The Fight Against al-Qaeda

In a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Seth Jones and Martin Libicki discuss the fight against al-Qaeda, the fallacy of the so-called “War on Terror” and why the Bush-McCain over-reliance on military force in conducting counterterrorism runs contrary to our national security interests.

Military might against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups isn't working – and no wonder. After studying the record of 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, we've found that military force has rarely been effective in defeating this enemy. Indeed, the US reliance on military force – especially conventional military forces – has often been counterproductive.

Take Al Qaeda: Despite suffering a setback in Iraq and several senior operatives killed or captured, it has carried out more terrorist attacks after Sept. 11 than it did before, and these attacks have spanned a wider geographic area across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

The group's methods – from improvised explosive devices to increased suicide attacks – have grown more sophisticated. Its organizational structure has evolved as well, including encouraging a grass-roots approach by members while maintaining strategy and operations from a central location in Pakistan. This resurgence is reason enough to trigger an overhaul of US counterterrorism strategy. History offers some critical guidance.

Since 1968, more than three-quarters of terrorist groups have ended because of a political settlement or joint policing and intelligence efforts. But a political solution is not in the cards with Al Qaeda. Its goal – to take down multiple state regimes to create a pan-Islamic caliphate – is too radical to lead to any sort of negotiated settlement with Middle Eastern governments.

A good start toward peace, though, would be for Washington to stop thinking of this as a "war" with a battlefield solution. Most US allies, such as Britain and Australia, already have. In Britain, for example, the government shuns the phrase "war on terror" despite a long history of dealing with such terrorist groups as the IRA.

And rightly so. Military force often has the opposite effect from what is intended. It is often overused, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and is a boon to terrorist recruiters. The term "war" also has a symbolic cost. It feeds into the jihad or "holy war" concept that attracts the attention of potential terrorists by elevating them to "holy warrior" status. Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors.

What we are engaged in, more aptly, is "counterterrorism." Rather than a military focus, policing and intelligence should form the backbone of US and allied counterterrorism efforts. Tracking down Al Qaeda's network of members worldwide will require more work abroad from the CIA and FBI, as well as cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.

Such a strategic shift will demand a change in spending. Of the $609 billion in counterterrorism funding authorized by Congress between 2001 and 2007, 90 percent went to military operations. Much of that money would be better spent on law enforcement and intelligence agencies working overseas.

To be sure, when Al Qaeda is involved in an insurgency it may be necessary to use military force particularly special operations forces. But US successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the capture of several of its top terrorists in Pakistan suggest that the military and intelligence agencies should increasingly play a background role whenever possible.

Local military, police, and intelligence forces typically have more legitimacy to operate than do US forces, and have a better feel for the lay of the land. The US military should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, especially in large numbers, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.

There are good reasons to be hopeful. Al Qaeda's probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero. Its objectives are virtually unachievable. And no religious terrorist group that has folded since 1968 has achieved victory. While Osama bin Laden enjoys some popular support in the Muslim world, he has made enemies of virtually every government across the globe.

By alienating most of the world and declaring unachievable objectives, Al Qaeda has set a losing strategy. Let's not make countering it more difficult than it has to be.

There You Go Again...

Last week, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, wrote an editorial claiming that the country would undoubtedly turn to the Republican Party again this November. Why? Because they, and only they, are strong enough to protect America.

'Republicans Will Make History' by Ken Mehlman

Last month's narrowly averted plot to blow up airliners bound for the U.S. from Great Britain is a stark reminder that we are engaged in an extraordinary and dangerous global war. In 46 days, the American people will make an important decision about how we prosecute that war: Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?

This war began long before September 11, 2001. For a generation, the terrorists have attacked free nations, from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich to the 444 days that American hostages were held in Iran; from the 1983 Beirut attacks to the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995 and Khobar Towers in 1996; from the embassy attacks in 1998 to bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Too often, free nations responded weakly, or not at all, so the enemy grew emboldened. The result was 9/11.

Now we understand that we face a radical global movement of Islamic fascists, held
together by a totalitarian ideology as deadly as the ones we faced in World War II or the Cold War. This movement ebbs and flows. Its adherents meet in cyberspace instead of buildings. They gather on blogs instead of barracks. A terrorist in Syria can recruit allies in the heart of Europe and a cell leader in Asia can activate an attack in the U.S., all without leaving their homes. That makes this enemy difficult to defeat. They constantly adapt -- so we must as well.

That is why the choice we face on Nov. 7 is so critical. Democratic leaders are saying Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, that we should be more focused on defending the homeland. But again and again, the Democrats have proposed weakening our defenses. We learned on 9/11 the need for coordination between federal, state and local governments; yet the majority of congressional Democrats voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act. The foiled airplane plot re-emphasized the importance of following an enemy whose command and control is often obscure; yet Democrats opposed the NSA surveillance program and praised an activist judge's attempt to shut it down.

We need to aggressively and effectively interrogate captured terrorists in order to stop their plans before they come to fruition; yet Democrats want to handcuff those efforts. Terrorists cannot build IEDs or buy weapons without funding, but when the New York Times disclosed a secret program that was tracking their financing, more than 85% of House Democrats voted against a resolution supporting the program and condemning its media disclosure. We need to stop rogue regimes like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; yet Democrats want to take any use of force off the table.

Even more dangerous is that Democrats truly seem to believe that Iraq is completely separate from the greater war on terror. Al Qaeda's leaders are not confused about the importance of Iraq to their goal of global jihad. Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said his plan is to use Iraq as a base to launch further attacks, with the goal of creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. He wants to turn Iraq into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, except one strategically located between Syria and Iran, and sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of oil. Osama bin Laden himself said that the American withdrawal from Somalia emboldened his movement before 9/11. Imagine the victory celebrations among the terrorists if we were to retreat from Iraq. Yet this is exactly what Howard Dean and a majority of Democrats would have us do. In 46 days, we must ask ourselves, would surrendering Iraq to the enemy make us safer -- or less safe?

Here at home, we are also working to reform government. We live in a global economy, one in which it is just as easy to create jobs in India as it is in Indiana. Republicans understand this, which is why we are committed to lower taxes, less regulation and fewer lawsuits. Republicans have cut taxes every year since George W. Bush was elected president. We have streamlined regulations, reformed bankruptcy laws, offered choice to Medicare recipients, and limited class-action lawsuits. The Democrats opposed every single one of those reforms -- and they are pledging to stand in our way as we move forward.

Republicans want to eliminate the death tax once and for all. Democrats want to bring it back. Republicans want to explore new sources of energy to bring gas and heating prices down. Democrats want to block domestic exploration. Republicans want small businesses to be able to band together to provide health care to their employees at a reasonable price. Democrats don't believe entrepreneurs should have that freedom. Republicans want all parents to have the choice of where they send their kids to school. Democrats would limit that choice to the rich and powerful. The list goes on and on.

It would be foolish not to acknowledge the challenges Republicans face this election cycle. We are up against history. It has been close to a century since Republicans have held the White House and the House of Representatives for eight straight years. Winning four elections in a row doesn't happen that often.

Each election is unique, and the issues and candidates in the governor's race in Michigan are different from congressional races in California or the Senate contest in Tennessee. But there can be no doubt about the national and international import of the choice we all face as Americans. We face war and a changing global economy, and Republicans have very different strategies for victory than the Democrats. I believe the American people understand the choice of 2006, which is why I am confident that in 46 days Republicans will make history and maintain our majorities in Congress.

It’s the typical propaganda we’ve come to expect from the Republicans whenever an election is around the corner and they’re not polling too well. As per usual, it reeks of hypocrisy, irony, and blatant falsehoods. Thankfully, it’s also falling upon an increasing number of skeptical, if not deaf, ears. More and more people are sick of hearing the safety of their families and the security of their country used as campaign rhetoric instead of the underlying reason why the actions of their elected leaders should take precedent over their words.

In the article, Mehlman asks an important question; “Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?” First of all, how do we define “staying on offense?” Is it beginning a war in one country and then undermining its success by preemptively waging an unrelated war in another country before that initial war has been won? That would seem to be a doctrine of staying on the offensive regardless of the opponent.

I would contend that staying on the offensive means aggressively taking the fight to the terrorists, starting with al-Qaeda, without relenting until bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and those responsible for 9/11 were brought to justice. It would also mean implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and ensuring that our military, as well as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the resources they desperately need to capture terrorists and keep America safe. It would also involve an aggressive diplomatic effort to recruit the international coalitions and relationships necessary to wage an effective global war on terrorism. Unfortunately for Mehlman and unfortunately for America, the Republicans have failed badly in each of these regards.

And what are the available tools in fighting the war on terrorism? If it’s torture and unchecked presidential powers, then you should stay the course and vote Republican. Not only have they failed to use every tool to defend America, they have actually decreased the number of tools at our disposal. Poor civilian leadership decisions have dramatically lessened our military deterrent by stretching our under-equipped military dangerously thin. Many of these same decisions have undermined our nation’s credibility around the world which has lessened the diplomatic tools at our disposal, effectively depriving us of the partnerships we need to effectively root out terrorists in every dark corner of the world.

Mehlman and the Republicans also continually claim that we are engaged in a life and death struggle that defines who we are as a nation. At the same time, they refuse to let the military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies fight that war with anything more than a hand tied behind their back. Instead of mobilizing our nation for this epic struggle, they seem content on doing as little as possible... other than waging an all-out publicity war against the French and the liberals, all of whom clearly hate freedom.

Instead of adequately funding our military, homeland security and law enforcement needs, they push through unprecedented wartime tax cut after tax cut for the very people who should be sacrificing most, not least. He even boasts of Republican efforts to repeal a tax on the wealthiest estates in the country; an effort dubbed the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" that carries a pricetag of at least $700 billion over 10 years. After those tax cuts, it’s a tight budget they claim...that’s why we can’t meet the growing financial needs of a nation fully mobilized for war. Even so, those Republicans are apparently “utilizing every tool” at our disposal to keep us safe.

Instead of providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment they desperately need to complete their mission safely and successfully, they tell them to their face that “you go to war with the Army you have...not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Instead of waging an aggressive and focused war on terror, they commit their biggest sin by diverting much-needed resources and manpower from that effort to wage an unnecessary war based on false premises.

Mehlman later contends that free nations who respond weakly, or not at all, to terrorists will only embolden those terrorists. In pointing out the obvious, he attempts to provide a contrast from the strong Republican (apparently not simply American) response to 9/11. He fails to mention that it’s also probably not overly productive and perhaps a bit emboldening in itself to play directly into the hands of the terrorists; something the War in Iraq has precisely done.

Mehlman provides the enlightening proposition that the new generation of terrorists meet in cyberspace, not buildings; in blogs, not buildings. With this keen understanding of 21st century technology, he surely also understands how a new generation of terrorists has multiplied and intensified so quickly as a result of the very foreign policy he propounds. Yet, he fails to offer solutions, other than stay the course, to the problems he has only helped exacerbate. Instead, he contends that we must adapt just as these terrorists constantly adapt. It’s too bad that failing to adapt to a changing world is a Republican hallmark.

So, to get back to Mehlman’s underlying question… If you support the Republican record on national security, by all means vote Republican in November. I believe it is a clear record in which we’ve diverted necessary attention and resources from our real security priorities, we’ve broken our military, we’ve energized a new generation of terrorists around the world, and we’ve emboldened nations like Iran and North Korea and made them even greater threats to our security and national interests.

If instead you want our nation to wage an aggressive, unrelenting, focused and more successful war on terror without sacrificing the very principles for which generations of Americans have fought and died, then you should tell Ken Mehlman that he’s full of shit and you should give the Democrats a chance to get things done the right way.