So wrote Abraham Lincoln to Joseph Hooker as he assigned Hooker to command the Army of the Potomac. As it happened, Hooker gave Lincoln neither military success nor dictatorship. This letter is an example of the war leadership provided by Lincoln, who did not see political interference in military affairs as a vice. War is a political act, and in a democracy the political leaders who are responsible to the people should set policy. This is a theme of Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command, a book I have recommended before and do so again. For related discussion, see this post by Andrew McCarthy over at NRO.
Thus it is disappointing that the American people put far more trust in our military than our president or Congress when it comes to victory in Iraq. This is understandable, for of course generals are largely immune to political attack and they don't have to take any position on abortion. But this is also the result of poor leadership by both branches. On the eve of the anniversary of 9-11, we should recall that one of George Bush's first reactions to that event was to tell the American people to go shopping. One understands why he did so; he did not want the terrorists to think they can alter our way of life. But it set the tone for a kind of lack of seriousness regarding the war on terrorism. Bush has led us into war while at the same time asking little of the American people. Oh, he speaks often and eloquently about the sacrifices of the American military, but very little about the sacrifices of the American people in general. At the same time, his administration pursued a policy unnecessarily hostile to Congress, claiming executive power at every turn and pushing Congress aside. The administration has usually been right on the law, in my opinion, but politically foolish, alienating Congress and making it difficult to build consensus. Congress, on the other hand, has largely been willing to do nothing. When Republicans were in charge they deferred far too much to their president, giving up institutional prerogatives, to say nothing of leadership, in the name of protecting the popularity of their party's president. The Democrats are the mirror image, largely opposing the president at every turn in order to gain political advantage, while at the same ceding all responsibility out of fear that actually taking responsibility might hurt them politically. One can say this about George Bush: he has not let the fear of political failure stop him from doing what he thought best regarding American security. Failure he may get, but with more honor than his opponents in Congress will ever have.
One sees today that the same mistakes are being made. McCain and Lieberman urge us to do pretty much do whatever Gen. Petraeus tells us to do. The Democratic leadership tries to discredit Petraeus, not because he deserves discredit, but because what he is saying might hurt them politically. So now Petraeus must be weakened in public opinion so the Democrats can gain seats in Congress?
Obviously prudence dictates that politically leaders take seriously the advice of the generals. But it must be clear: generals do not set policy, political leaders do. McCain and Lieberman are certainly closer to the truth in that it is unwise to dismiss Gen. Petraeus, certainly not before one has even heard him. But the general's report today should be seen as purely informational, not policy setting.
Recent Comments