Trust Bush To Trust Congress

By Gil Troy

Published February 21, 2003, issue of February 21, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Just who is George W. Bush? Is he “Top Gun,” as Newsweek recently crowned him, or “The Right Man,” as David Frum argues in his book, a master of strategy besting Democrats and Iraqis with ease? Is he the “deliberate, patient” visionary Bob Woodward depicts in “Bush at War,” a leader so clever, so engaged, that the “most awful moments” for Condoleeza Rice, the brainy National Security Adviser, come “when the president th[inks] of something that the principals, particularly she, should have anticipated”? Or is Bush a “moron,” as Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s dearly departed aide suggested?

“In New York I expect to hear Bush compared to Little Lord Fauntleroy or Bernie Ebbers,” Lewis Lapham wrote in Harper’s Magazine, “and I take it for granted that nearly everybody else in the conversation shares my own low regard for the corporate-management theory that informs the making of American foreign policy.”

That we seem reduced to such simplistic choices reflects the poverty of contemporary political discourse. Life is more complicated than a thumbs-up or thumbs-down analysis, even in our headline-driven age. Critics of Republican presidents need not always denigrate their rival’s intelligence; Republicans need not always exaggerate their hero’s talents. A sophisticated understanding of the president, his policies and his vision is essential in a world of perilous choices and vicious enemies.

If Bush leads the United States into a war against Iraq, it will be a “trust me” war, a war whose perceived legitimacy rests on the faith Americans have in their president. Wars are calculated risks, with the only assured casualty being the status quo. Absent a foolish move by Saddam Hussein, the green light for a war will be based on the president’s judgment. Moreover, a decision to fight this post-Gulf War war will be susceptible to future recriminations, for no one will be able to prove what would have happened had there not been a war.

The stunning superficiality of the war debate — a debate filled with excesses wherein too many “peaceniks” treat “Bushitler” as the villain and Saddam as the victim — renews one’s appreciation for Jewish law. A rich rabbinic literature approaches this profound question with the sanctity it merits, distinguishing between different types of wars and providing an intellectual and moral framework for making the decision to use force.

The American people’s reliance on their leader’s whim — er, his rational, balanced calculation — only polarizes the debate further. Pro-war forces feel compelled to glorify the president; anti-war forces feel equally compelled to demonize him. It is possible, however, to seek a middle position.

Bush deserves high marks for three accomplishments. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Bush reassured the nation, disrupted Al Qaeda and crushed the Taliban. The last two objectives were achieved despite much media naysaying. Just before the Taliban fled, talk of quagmires abounded. More recently, Bush has succeeded in refocusing attention on Saddam’s violations of international law, the Gulf War cease-fire and basic standards of humanity.

Unfortunately, there have been many other “limited successes,” as Jimmy Carter called one of his failures. Afghanistan is neither democratic nor functional. Osama bin Laden and too many of his henchmen remain unaccounted for. “Homeland Security” is now the Orwellian name of Washington’s newest bureaucracy, with the actual goal still elusive and duct tape no guarantee of safety. Bush has been soft on the Saudis, the Syrians and the many American Muslims who continue to support the terrorists.

Moreover, in keeping with the Reagan-Clinton commitment to happy talk, Bush woos Americans with irresponsible tax cuts rather than challenging Americans with talk of sacrifice. And he has so far failed to convince the world why, after 12 years of dithering, the United Nations request for “more time” for inspections is farcical and regime change in Iraq is not only the best way out of this difficult situation but an integral part of the global war against terrorism.

Judging by Bush’s track record so far, and that of the American military, the war will probably be relatively easy to win, the peace relatively easy to lose. For every optimistic scenario Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld can generate of a democratic Iraq inspiring others to reform, skeptics can imagine half a dozen disasters, ranging from street demonstrations destabilizing Bush’s “moderate” Arab friends to an unholy Shi’ite alliance between Iran and Iraq.

Success in war and peace will require the talents of a “Top Gun.” Rather than carping about Bush’s IQ, his alleged oil-obsession or, in a case of Freudianism run amok, his need to outdo Papa Bush, critics need to prod the administration to clarify the war aims and rationale. Similarly, rather than lionizing Bush as the 21st-century’s answer to Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, supporters need to help the president fine-tune this war against terrorism, keeping the focus on eradicating Islamicist terrorism rather than on targeting “evil.” Bush and his representatives need to quote more frequently from Kenneth Pollack’s sober, comprehensive and convincing book “The Threatening Storm” — which shows that Saddam is a clear and present danger to the West — and spend less time on demonology and eschatology.

To compensate for his failures of public leadership thus far, Bush should turn to his colleagues on Capitol Hill. By trusting the Congress to debate the issue and declare war, Bush will make this a “trust us and our allies” war, not simply a “trust me” war. The strategy is risky, but so is democracy. It is by taking such risks and triumphing that presidents — and nations — prove their greatness.

The second printing of Gil Troy’s latest book, “Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today” (Bronfman Jewish Education Centre), was recently released.

Find us on Facebook!
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight":
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.