Most of us really don't pay too much attention to Presidential Advisors, those influential figures in the cabinet or White House Staff who have the ear of the President. Whenever a President makes a decision, it is assumed that the decision was made unilaterally, that it is all up to that one person, the President, to make that decision. Perhaps that is true in case of a dictator, and it is true to some extent even in democracy, because after all, the final word is coming from that ultimate decision maker. But all in all, the President, the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the country is dependent on his or her advisors to come up with the right answer, and they become the spokesperson for that (hopefully) consensus among the leaders (cabinet members, etc.).
Among Presidential Advisors, it isn't always the high ranking cabinet member that has the most influence and effect. Sometimes it is someone at a lower level who convinces their boss to champion their ideas, and their boss convinces the President. In such a way, sometimes our Presidents don't always get the right or appropriate advice on how to handle a particular situation. The entire Vietnam War was essentially fought at the direction of our Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert McNamara. McNamara had tremendous influence on President Johnson and despite his total lack of combat experience, he essentially called the shots on how to conduct the war in Southeast Asia! Although McNamara served during World War Two in the Army Air Corps, he did not see combat, instead handled statistics for General Lemay, statistics on effectiveness of bombing! Small wonder we were so obsessed with statistics during Vietnam War! Of course, McNamara in turn surrounded himself with his advisors, who were just about all civilian "bean counters" and CEO types that not only lacked military experience but disliked the military!
Vietnam War was the beginning of our "strategy-less" war planning and micro-managing of the war from Washington. McNamara, who was an automobile industry CEO tried to run the war like he was trying to run GM or Ford! It was more like he was trying to accomplish a hostile take over of another company rather than winning a war! Naturally he surrounded himself with assistants and advisors who were also from similar background. It doesn't take a genius to see that the "management" of the Vietnam War was doomed from the start. But that was more than a half a century ago, so let's move to a closer period.
Back in the early 1980s, we had a Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, who was determined not to repeat what happened during Vietnam. Unlike McNamara, Weinberger was an Infantry officer who fought in World War Two, so he knew and understood combat. As President Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Weinberger practiced a doctrine that he created which basically had a few ground rules. 1. Never go to war without a strategy which has a beginning and an end. 2. Never go to war without overwhelming superiority in force and arms. 3. Never go to war without a good reason and clear cut goal. I have paraphrased part of the Weinberger Doctrine, although there never was any formal document that outlined the so-called doctrine. But that is what Weinberger believed in and advised the President. In this way, Weinberger felt we would never get involved in another war like Vietnam.
So, in 1983 when we intervened in Grenada, we went in with overwhelming force, cleared out the Cubans with minimal fuss, rescued the American citizens, and after making sure that the Cubans were gone, left Grenada in short time! Now the media ridiculed Reagan and his policies, his "Invasion of Grenada," likening it to killing an ant with a sledge hammer! Too much force, too much man power, so on and so forth went the criticism. Some in the media even claimed that the rescued American citizens did not need "rescuing." Those who were rescued, and were grateful, would disagree with that assessment! But the fact remained that we went in, accomplished the goal, and got out. No occupation, no lingering guerrilla warfare with insurgents, etc. Obviously, the Weinberger Doctrine worked!
General Colin Powell, who served as the National Security Advisor to the President from 1987 to 1989 overlapped with Casper Weinberger who was Secretary of Defense from 1981 to 1987. Powell was very much impressed with the Weinberger Doctrine. When George H.W. Bush became president, Colin Powell became one of his trusted advisors, first as the National Security Advisor, then as the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff. In 1989 it was decided that something had to be done with Manuel Noriega, the strongman in Panama, he was becoming a real problem.
Operation Just Cause was launched with overwhelming force. There was a precise strategy, from beginning to end with a clear exit strategy. We went in, got Noriega, and after a very brief stay, got out. Much like Grenada, it was a clean (as wars go!), quick operation! It was the Powell Doctrine now. A year later we went into the Gulf War. Again, it was with overwhelming force, liberated Kuwait, pushed Saddam back into Baghdad, destroyed his Republican Guard and basically "degraded" his military so he wouldn't be a threat in the region. Like the Invasion of Grenada and Invasion of Panama, the Gulf war had a precise strategy. So despite an outcry from some that it was a mistake not to take out Saddam and occupy Iraq, we stopped short. We had accomplished what we had set out to do, so we left.
As good as the old Weinberger Doctrine and the newer Powell Doctrines were, there was bound to be an upstart with "new" and "better" ideas. An Undersecretary of Defense from 2001 to 2005 and Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2007, Paul Wolfowitz had his own "doctrine" which he pushed and had his boss, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld convinced that he had a great plan. Wolfowitz Doctrine was better known as "Plan for U.S. World Domination." He was obsessed with the idea of having the U.S. remain as the sole super power and had all sorts of ideas on how to keep Russia from gaining any influence. He was also adamant about "taking out" Saddam Hussein and establishing a new regime in Iraq.
We went into the Second Iraq War basically using Wolfowitz Doctrine. Unfortunately, the Wolfowitz Doctrine did not provide for complete planning, for aftermath of defeat of Saddam and occupation. As already mention in an earlier blog, those who championed the Powell Doctrine, Colin Powell himself and General Eric Shinseki were shoved aside. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was suspiciously similar in approach to war as Robert McNamara's approach to Vietnam War of some half a century earlier! Wolfowitz's boss, Rumsfeld was sold on his underlings ideas and pushed them. He apparently also convinced other members of the cabinet, for Powell and his "reluctant warrior" policy fell out of favor and we became entangled in Iraq.
What is amazing to me is that it appears that although the Wolfowitz Doctrine is no longer in favor, we have nothing to replace it. In short, we have no strategy whatsoever on handling the situations around the world! Obama's advisors are apparently not concerned with being without a strategy! Contrary to what Wolfowitz and his followers predicted, Russia did not shrivel up and become a nonentity, instead, it has become a power to contend with, thanks to our bungling and lack of strategy. In the meantime, rather than "dominating the world" as Wolfowitz planned, we have become a lesser player, especially in the Middle East.
The President is only as good as the advisors that surround him. Ronald Reagan was successful because he had the good fortune of having very good advisors. Let's hope that our next President, whoever it may be, has better advisors than the current President!
No comments:
Post a Comment