Seeking Leadership for Iraq
This is reunion weekend at Harvard Business School, and I am here for my 35th. Since I only feel 35 years old so I can't figure out how this could be my 35th reunion. But since many of us have graying hair I guess it must be true.
Today is one of those incredibly beautiful New England fall days with temperatures in the mid- 60s and sunny blue skies filled with white cumulus clouds. People are already headed to the train station and airport to return home to various parts of the world.
So for the first time in days I had a chance to read an article in the September HBS Alumni Bulletin which had arrived in my post office box earlier this week. One article that caught my attention immediately was a one-on-one interview with Ali Allawi, former minister of defense and finance in post-Saddam Iraq. He is an HBS graduate from the class of 1971. Although I did not know him, we overlapped by one year as I graduated in 1972.....three years before President George Bush (MBA '75) and six years after Coalition Provisional Authority administrator Paul Bremmer (MBA '66).
Ali Allawi left London for three years (2003-2006) to live in Baghdad, and to serve in the Iraqi government before returning to London. He was on the front line of the war zone, and as a Shia from a prominent family he is a man whose opinions should be considered in setting our future policy in Iraq. I would strongly suggest that you read his recent interview in full.
In 1968 I worked in Washington, D.C. for a freshman congressman by the name of George H. W. Bush. He went on to become one of our finest presidents in the area of foreign policy. Over the last four decades I have stayed in touch with him, and consider him a friend. He is honest, intelligent, experienced, decent, well-traveled and best of all a good listener. He is one of my heroes.
For that reason I have hesitated to say anything in public about the policies of his son who is now serving as our president. No father wants to read or hear anything negative about his son even if it concerns only national defense policies. However, as Americans it is our right and duty to express our opinions openly about issues that affect the security of our own families. So I have reluctantly decided to add my voice to the discussion of what is taking place in Iraq.
During 2001 I told many of my friends that I thought President Bush would declare war on Iraq. Not only because we were told Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, but because the regime of Saddam Hussein had unsuccessfully tried to have his father assassinated years before. Texans remember those types of things, and they don't take kindly to such actions. I don't necessarily think it was a conscious thought by the president, but I do believe that to some degree it influenced his final decision.
When President Bush took us to war on March 20, 2003 I supported him in that action. But when it was discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction, I believed that we should exit as soon as practicable for our stated reason for entering Iraq had been negated. However, that was not to be the case, and today we are bogged down in what appears to be an untenable situation.
When we hear such statements as "if we don't fight them there, then we will have to fight them here" I wonder what these politicians are thinking. We can't possibly fight all the terrorists in all the countries where they exist because we don't have the money or manpower to do so. Our army is already stretched to the breaking point. We need to prioritize, and Iraq should no longer be at the top of the list. Whether we stay or pull out, there will be bloodshed. But by staying longer we are only postponing the inevitable at the cost of more young American lives and injuries. It is time for the Iraqi people to decide on their own future. We should find a way to extricate ourselves from their country by the end of 2008. It is time to refocus on bin Laden and the people behind the 9/11 attack.
It takes leadership in business and politics to decide when to exit from an unsuccessful venture or war. One of the things that we learned at HBS was to pull the plug on an unprofitable venture in order to protect the corporation. A surgeon will cut off a limb in order to protect the body from disease. And a commander-in-chief should pull out of a war that cannot be won in order to protect a nation. This war is crippling our ability to face far more serious enemies, draining our treasury and burdening our children with ever more debt, and hurting our image and influence among countries in the free world who want to be our friends.
Richard Nixon was a Republican who made his career as an anti-communist and as a hawk, but he had the courage to end the Vietnam War. No one doubts George Bush's credentials as a fighter of terrorism. And no one is in a better position to reduce our armed forces in Iraq than this president. But it will take courage and leadership to change course. It will also require President Bush to invite more people into his inner circle to tell him things he might not want to hear. None of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes. But the American people are a very forgiving people.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Check this out:
bush is getting ready to make remarks on the economy, and there is a banner spread across the back with the words KEEPING TAXES LOW.
It is the same frikkin' flag graphic that was used for the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the USS Lincoln.
These assholes are shameless.
Why people of average intelligence or higher still beleive this BS is truly mind-boggling.
I would be very interested to know on what basis you claim that GWB has proven his bona vides with regard to terrorism. This is the man who willfully ignored the August 6 PDB, ¨Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States.¨ This is the man who demoted Richard Clark, one of the country´s leading antiterrorism experts. This is the man who has unilaterally pulled us out of several treaties, the result of years of hard work and negotiation. This is the man who supported Al Gonzalez and his claim that the Geneva Conventions are quaint. And, worst of all, this is the man who is said to have proclaimed that ¨the Constitution of the United States is just a goddamned piece of paper.¨ Though the latter may not be directly related to foreign policy, it certainly speaks of someone who could give a flying fig about documents, domestic or international, that are supposed to guide us to a higher and more humane way of being.
George Bush is as much a Texan as Barak Obama is a Chicagoan or John Edwards is a North Carolinean or you are a Californian. Choosing to live in a place different from our birth and/or upbringing does not confer upon us the attributes of one who is a native of same. Just ask Molly Ivins.
As for your fried GHWB, I will gladly admit that he is much brighter than his son. He earned his Phi Beta Kappa key when it meant something. But to attribute to him great skill in the area of foreign policy is, I fear, a bit of a stretch. It´s one thing to have and use an international Roladex to further ones financial interests (c.f., Carlyle Group), another to claim the mantel of great leader in the area of international politics. I say this as one who did not then and do not now support the 1991 Gulf War.
apduncan1 writes:
What a crock!
If you believe we are in the ME for Democracy and not for oil I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
Apollo says:
You remind me of the old days when we accused LBJ of escalating the war in Vietnam to steal that country's rice, rubber and coffee beans. If Vietnam at the time was an oil producing country, as it since has become, we would have made LBJ's ties to Texas oil his hidden motive for the war.
Viet-Nam is a Bright Shining Lie... read the book.
As long as France was bogged down in Viet-Nam she couldn't use the Marshall Plan money to reconstruct. I hope you can follow this.
If France didn't keep up with the economies of Germany, Italy and Great Britain and other countries benefiting of the US aid she would have fallen under a leftist goverment. That would have bracketed Germany between a Soviet threat and a leftist France.
The US got involved in Viet-Nam to release some pressure off France. And couldn't get out.
LBJ had to stay to keep Mr. Brown of Brown & Root happy. Guess who owns B & R now?
It may be just my foggy memory, but I don't seem to recall the emphasis on rice, rubber, and coffee.
I do remember the slogan of being in Viet Nam for 'Stanley Steamer, Standard Oil, and Jesus Christ.'
Standard Oil being the obvious reference to the large oil reserves of the region.
Actually I think it was Stanley Dollar
FIRST OF ALL NONE OF THESE BUSHHOLES ARE TEXANS!!!! THEY ARE CARPETBAGGERS. I agree with your assertions about leadership, getting out of Iraq, re-focus on bin Laden, blah, blah. But, I seriously question your view of HW as "one of our finest Presidents in the area of foreign policy" or Shrub "noone doubts George Bush's credentials as a fighter of terrorism.
But this war with 74,000 American dead and over one million American wounded is not about our nation, it is about the personal wealth of the executives in the oval office. And for that transitory wealth in their puny fleeting lives they are not only willing but happy to send America as a nation to her death along with thoes 74 thousand dead Americans and counting.
Sixty three more of our Soldiers died in Iraq in September.
That is sixty three more that we can't get back, even if the war would end today. No telling how many have been blinded, crippled,maimed, deafened and shell shocked.
The Bush and Cheney girls need to go fight in Iraq. We need the draft.
I quite-soberly think that this country has arrived at the point where it must indeed "cut off" things to save itself.
The thing that it must "cut off" is this President, this Vice-President, and all other "civil officers" of this Government who have abused their powers to commit this phalanx of high-crimes.
There is an obvious stretch of pure lawlessness in these leaders... that they make their own laws, do as they please, and do so with impunity.
When a previous elected(!) leader, Adolph Hitler, was allowed to do things "with impunity," World War II was the result.
I see absolutely no reason why this sort of thing should be allowed to happen again.
"The Constitution: it's not just a good idea. It's The Law."
A surgeon will cut off a limb in order to protect the body from disease. And a commander-in-chief should pull out of a war that cannot be won in order to protect a nation.
Just like the Dim's did to Cindy Sheehan.
Dear Michael:
If WMDs were the reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom we would have been out of that country by now. The fundamental primary reason for the invasion, the animating principle of the Bush Doctrine, what drives the President to stay the course in Iraq, is FREEDOM: the democratization of the Middle East. The President believes with profound religious conviction that the freedom deficit is the cause of terrorism in the region and that democracy is its antidote and cure. With him it is Gospel that a united, democratic federal Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself against its domestic and regional enemies is still an option and possibility. He believes with messianic zeal that such an Iraq will be an inspiration of reform and liberty to the Arab world and Moslems everywhere. This dream consumes the president's soul and is his obsession.
There is no arguing this point with the President, Michael, he is dogmatic on the issue and has no tolerance for non believers; he does not have the flexible mind of his father and is committed to his program of nation building to the end.
What a crock!
If you believe we are in the ME for Democracy and not for oil I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
It may or may not be a dream of democracy that consumess the President's soul, but is greed and a desire for oil and world domination that is his obsessions. Any idea of democracy as a fundamental justification for this war is pure KoolAid.
I know, deep down in my heart, this kind of thinking helps you "deal" with the world.
Destroying thousands of years of history and replacing them with George's world... would be welcome by NO ONE.
"In 1968 I worked in Washington, D.C. for a freshman congressman by the name of George H. W. Bush. He went on to become one of our finest presidents in the area of foreign policy."
Thanks for that one, Mike, I needed a laugh.
"No one doubts George Bush's credentials as a fighter of terrorism.
Reeaaaallly?
1) OBL is an honored guest in PAKISTAN.
2) Saudi Arabia gets a free pass.
Enough said.
Fercrissakes.
Per the teaser to the essay, when is someone going to surgically remove Duhbya to save the U.S.?
*** TROOPS OUT or BUSH OUT ***
It's a matter of survival.
The only sure way to get out of Iraq is for Congress to make war profiteering illegal (limit it to cost plus 10%), including long-term oil production deals. Everyone with a vested interest would work hard to resolve the issues and get out.
Well, Michael, absent from your 2-pager, there
was any real discussion of just how much MONEY
has been laid on the table. Massive, incalculable, unaccountable amounts of money
have been dumped on/into Iraq, of which the
world-famous 12-billion-dollar 'oopsie, can't
seem to find it, did YOU see 12 billion laying
around here, somewhere?' incident is but a drop
in the bucket.
This multinational mercenarial misbegotten
enterprise has gone on now, for 4-plus years,
it has done so at the direction and behest
of this administration, I don't even know if you
can call it a 'war' anymore, not in the conventional sense, but suffice it to say
that Congress' authority in the matter appears
to have been subverted, nullified, stolen,
call it how you want, but Bush has his foot on
the throttle, and the only way to stop the
entire charade is likely impeachment.
What? And stop the show?
Think about it... when "the United States spends billions on the war," somebody in the Beltway gets to take the money home.
It's very simple to trace the business connections of the members of Congress, of the Executive Branch and of the Supreme Court.
In January of 1961, "Ike was right."
I don't think W learned much at Harvard. The other Harvard MBA's which you mentioned have not done that well in public service either. It leaves the impression that a Harvard MBA is useful in the private sector only if the MBA has other skills which Harvard does not teach. For want of a better word talent is required if a Harvard MBA is to be successful. This may be true in other situations & be true for all of human kind.
If being the PRESIDENT of the United States of America (twice) is not the epitome of success, what the hell is Larry????
The 1st he was SELECTED; the 2nd was courtesy of the Ohio Governor.
Well, have you heard of people named Filmore, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Nixon, Carter? If you have heard of any of them-what did you hear of them? Have you ever heard that W is RB Cheney's sock puppet? Try reading a joke book which was published when each of them held office as POTUS. There is the one about a reporter asking Babe Ruth what Mr Ruth thought about making more the POTUS-Mr Ruth said, "I had a better year than him.". A guy named Bill Gates who dropped out of college makes more than W. There is the headline printed in England in '04 after W was re-elected, "How Can So Many Be So Stupid?". There are still charges that the elecion in Fl in '00 was stolen for W. Check it out, Flipster.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
