A matter of evidence…

I think the time has come where we all need to stop pissing and moaning about evidence. I think it’s time to accept the circumstances of the situation and go from there. I’m sick of hearing about how the evidence linking Saddam to the attacks of 9/11 is flimsy or non-existent. That should never have been used as a motivating factor for our military action, in the first place. Pundits argue that there was no logical connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, citing Saddam’s stifling of fundamentalist movements and Osama bin Laden’s ire for secular Arab leaders. The flaw in this analysis is in its lack of application of human nature and lessons from history. We, the U.S., have consistently demonstrated throughout history that we will ally with the enemy of our enemies: the Russians in World War II, Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, the list goes on. There are countless lessons from history that suggests that virtually any other foreign leader would/will do the same. Granted, we have a tendency to be less discriminating about whom we choose as “friends”, but mistakes will happen. The point is that what you characterize as “serious” evidence is subjective. If I see a trail of associations to those responsible, then, to me, the guilt is self-evident. In proverbial terms, we refer to it as “birds of a feather flock together”. Would I blame Saddam Hussein directly for 9/11? No. Do I think he had some peripheral contribution? Yes. Do I feel the need for such evidence to justify kicking his ass? Not only no, but hell no.

We are traveling down a very dark road with the beacon of self-righteousness leading our way. “American internationalism”, our newest foreign policy, asserts that democracy is the way to global peace. In all fairness, there is compelling evidence that supports it. The risks we accept, however, are the consequences of our arrogance. By asserting our preeminence, we draw enmity from a great many in this world. As a leader, it’s a tough decision. But ask any corporate leader in this country and they’ll tell you their truths:

1) Leadership is more about “responsibility” than “ability”. For every decision there is a natural consequence and as a leader you have to accept them and press on. That’s the responsibility of our leaders.

2) Leadership requires very tough decisions that are often unpopular. The luxury that most leaders have is the benefit of the broader perspective, often referred to as “the big picture”. That picture defines their vision of the past, present, and future. Invariably, any given decision will have opposing viewpoints. As a leader, it’s necessary to consider those views and press on.

3) Vision is a hard thing to verbalize. It’s often lonely at the top because of the benefit of the bigger picture and the inability to effectively communicate it. One of the biggest challenges leaders face is leading itself, motivating others toward a common goal, driven by a common vision. Articulating that vision is the first and most difficult step.

4) Leadership requires the right blend of lieutenants. Without the first rank of subordinates both sharing the vision and offering disparate viewpoints, the leader’s foundation is unstable. Bill Gates was once noted as saying that he’s “not that smart”, he “just surrounds himself with smart people”. His business ethics notwithstanding, he is arguably one of the greatest business leaders today

The path that President Bush has embarked upon is a difficult one, whether I agree with it or not. Is it right? I can’t answer that. In my opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong. If asked, I would say the same about Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and any other religion that aggressively purports that theirs is singularly principled. Are there benefits? I strongly argue, yes, there is. I believe that almost anyone would agree with that. That’s not where the argument lies, though, is it. It lies in how well we can accept the consequences and some people are less apt than others.

Believe it or not, this philosophical foray was actually leading somewhere. The argument has been made that the foreign policy practices of containment and deterrence would have kept Saddam Hussein in check, indefinitely. After all, so the story goes, it worked so well with the Soviet Union that we ultimately prevailed. Like an international staring contest, they went blind from not blinking. But to correlate Cold War containment with Saddam Hussein ignores the details of the circumstances. Cold War containment worked because the two principals involved were levelheaded and unwilling to risk the devastation of their country or countrymen. Saddam has demonstrated otherwise. Pundits further contend that even in the event that Saddam did acquire a nuclear capability, he would be deterred by the other nuclear weapon-wielding nations of the world. They contend that the prospect of a retaliatory strike would prevent him from initiating one. This is where the so-called experts have miscalculated their subject. Saddam Hussein, by his own admission, is an anti-Semite with pan-Arab ambitions. His two personal idols include Joseph Stalin (who killed millions of his own countrymen) and Egyptian President Nasser (who publicly stated that “the problem with Israel is that it exists”). Experts further miscalculate their enemy; fundamentalist Islamic leaders have consistently said that their religion sanctifies death as much as the Zionists sanctify life. Nothing would deter Saddam Hussein, a megalomaniac by all accounts, from martyring himself and his people if it meant the total annihilation of Israel. He would consider it a personal and pan-Arab coup of historic proportions. Until such time, he will do everything he can to bend the rules to further his cause.

The other exception I take to the argument of containment and deterrence is with the U.S. response. If a retaliatory nuclear strike is going to take place, it must occur swiftly and decisively. Not a matter of weeks or days, but a matter of hours or minutes. In this day and age, the political fallout both nationally and internationally is far greater than any president in recent history (in my opinion) has the intestinal fortitude to risk. We elect leaders to make tough decisions, but each one accepts their post with a prayer on their lips that they may never have to exercise all of the power with which they’ve been endowed.

And what IF Saddam sells off a nuclear weapon to the highest anti-Semitic bidder? How do we retaliate against a nation-less entity, like al-Qaeda, al-Ansar al-Islam, or Abu Sayyef? I can hear the news stories now… “Why didn’t we do more to stop this? What more could we have done to prevent this from happening?” I’m not an expert in foreign policy or diplomatic relations, but I believe the logical argument suggests that anything less than pre-emptive military intervention increases the risk (the probability of occurrence, in this case). And the natural consequence of this very difficult course of action is a different kind of political fallout. Are there benefits? Yes. What is the list of consequences and which are we willing to accept? This is Risk Management 101. You implement mitigation actions to reduce the probability or consequence of occurrence for any given risk. For every mitigating action there is a cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost outweigh the benefits? And by how much are we mitigating the risk. …These are the tools of a leader.

Enough for now…