Telegraphing your punches
After the lead in where he discusses the failure of Netscape and Sun, he ties it into his view of the US's strategy in the war:
Surprise is a major advantage. It doesn't last forever, but for a critical period tactical surprise can be the difference between victory and defeat. And strategic surprise operates over a period of years; it's always a mistake to let someone know that in a couple of years you expect to be gunning for them. That was the mistake Sun and Netscape made.
In the current war the US is fighting the long term strategy is, and I now think always was, to bring about democratic and liberal reform in most of the major Arab governments. After the attack on NYC and Washington in September of 2001, and after it became clear that al Qaeda was responsible, it was obvious that the Taliban were in the crosshairs and with few friends and no important patrons had no chance of survival. I think it wasn't too difficult for anyone to figure out that Saddam would be next, though it wasn't anything like as clear that those plans couldn't be derailed.
Some of the things that the president and his administration have done (especially Colin Powell and the State Department) have confused me. Things like playing up to the Saudi monarchy when there exists considerable evidence that it is not at all the ally it has been perceived to be. As Stephen writes:
Some have argued that the current war is actually a Saudi Civil War which they exported. As Dan Darling put it:For the last 14 years, there has been something of a gentleman's agreement between House Saud and al-Qaeda: the latter will not target the former, in exchange for the Saudi government turning a blind eye towards al-Qaeda's activities in the Kingdom.
Those activities included fund raising and recruiting, and even turning a blind eye towards the occasional attack inside Saudi Arabia itself, which the government blamed on foreign liquor smugglers. It was also part of a larger devil's agreement that the House of Saud had long had with the Wahhabis that the Sauds would let the Wahhabists operate unhindered and let them persecute heretics and enforce "proper behavior". In exchange the Wahhabis would ignore the decadent lifestyles of the Saud Princes (who, for instance, reportedly import huge amounts of Scotch Whiskey) and let them continue to rule the nation and to skim off a large part of the national income for their own use.
Many accuse President Bush of not being very smart. However, I've been wondering for some time if he really is a lot smarter than he appears, or at least the people that help him make decisions are. I've certainly been hoping that that is the case. If what Stephen says is true, then my hope is justified:
Yet President Bush seemed to spend a lot of time cozying up to the Sauds, even inviting a group of high level Sauds to visit the Texas ranch. For that he's been criticized roundly, with veiled intimations by some that it's (whisper it) all about oil.
Actually, it was all about not telegraphing punches. It was all about not letting the Sauds, and other autocratic Arab leaders in the region many of whom were "allies", know that our long term plans required that they either drastically reform their own nations or be deposed. Had they understood the long term plan and its implications, they would have banded together and actively opposed us, representing a serious impediment and possibly making victory impossible.
As he has shown repeatedly, Bush doesn't cave in to political expediency and criticism. And it looks like he once again waited it out until the time is right:
Over the last few months the US has been colder towards the Sauds. We haven't demanded that they step down, but we're asking for more in the way of concrete action. And with the most recent attack of a couple of days ago, it's become clear that the militants in Saudi Arabia are beginning to actively work to depose the Sauds themselves. The tacit truce with al Qaeda is over, and the Sauds are going to be forced to choose sides at long last, and to fight the civil war they've been trying to avoid for the last few decades. If they do that, we might help them. But they no longer get a pass; there's no "special relationship" any longer, no more blind eye turned their direction.
It's good that it's out in the open now. It's good that it's now formal policy of the government. And it's good that Bush was in no hurry to announce it; it's good that he was willing to wait until that announcement would not do more harm than good. It's good that he wasn't willing to compromise execution of the strategy just to relieve political pressure and defuse criticism.
These excerpts, as usual, only give the flavor of his writing, but I recommend you go read the article in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment