|
Second-guessing? Speak Up, As Long As You Agree with ThemBy Rick Horowitz
He's right, you know: Second-guessing is not a strategy. It's a necessity. There was the president the other night, defending the state of the union, and trying to have it all ways. Open to debate, as long as it's within the bounds he sets. Welcoming "responsible criticism," but not "defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure." All for civility, while his top lieutenants continue to rip the skin off anyone who crosses them. "Hindsight alone is not wisdom," the president declared. "And second-guessing is not a strategy." Well. First of all, it's not second-guessing -- it's certainly not hindsight -- if you said it before it happened. It's prediction. It's warning. And there were all sorts of people sounding warnings long before Mr. Bush sent our soldiers into Iraq. People who did war, or reconstruction, or counter-insurgency for a living. Who knew what they were talking about and were ready to share their experience, and their concerns. The president and his people weren't much interested in hearing them. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld knew what they knew, and they knew better than anyone else. So we went into Iraq without enough troops to get the job done. Without enough armor to protect those troops. Without a coherent plan for the days and months after the statue came down. The president and his people knew better. They were wrong. Of course they want to change the subject! And it's hardly second-guessing -- or hindsight -- to use the past to help pick your way through the future. Or would you prefer that every impression be a first impression? Say you're off on a camping trip somewhere, somewhere in the mountains, and a man suddenly appears one morning with a walking stick and a water jug. This man (we'll call him "George") tells you he's a guide, and he wants to take you hiking even deeper into the mountains, and right to the edge of the giant falls. You've heard it's pretty treacherous up there. Would it be useful to know whether this "George" actually knows his way around? Did he get completely lost the last time he led a hike? Was he able to find his way out of tough spots? Adjust to changing conditions? Did he keep wandering into hornets' nests? Did he even lose a couple of poor souls over the falls? These would be extremely useful things to know before you decide to put yourself in his hands, don't you think? Irrelevant, the president and his people insist. The past is past -- get over it. This from the same gang that was willing to dig decades into the past to raise doubts about the leadership abilities of a political opponent. And yet the president's missteps and miscalculations should somehow be off the table? Beyond consideration? Yes, we're deep into Iraq -- maybe too deep to get out quickly without causing even bigger problems. But does that mean the past doesn't count in figuring out just how we proceed from here? Of course it counts. It counts whenever we hear the president's latest prediction or pronouncement or strategy. Whenever the vice president speaks in certainties. Whenever the defense secretary oozes confidence. How much faith should we have in their judgment? In their strategic skills? In their wisdom? In their credibility? After all they've done, and left undone, has their record really earned our trust? That's not second-guessing. That's self-defense. Posted 2/4/06. Get
award-winning commentary from syndicated columnist Rick Horowitz twice
every week.
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
