THE BOMB THROWER VS. THE BOMBMAKER:

The Long Bomb (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, March 2, 2003, NY Times)

Watching this Iraq story unfold, all I can say is this: If this were not about my own country, my own kids and my own planet, I'd pop some popcorn, pull up a chair and pay good money just to see how this drama unfolds. Because what you are about to see is the greatest shake of the dice any president has voluntarily engaged in since Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan. Vietnam was a huge risk, but it evolved incrementally. And threatening a nuclear war with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis was a huge shake of the dice by President John Kennedy, but it was a gamble that was imposed on him, not one he initiated.

A U.S. invasion to disarm Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein and rebuild a decent Iraqi state would be the mother of all presidential gambles. Anyone who thinks President Bush is doing this for political reasons is nuts. You could do this only if you really believed in it, because Mr. Bush is betting his whole presidency on this war of choice. [...]

My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support for his vision - support vital to seeing it through. He and his team are the only people who would ever have conceived this project, but they may be the worst people to implement it. The only place they've been bold is in their military preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin disarming). [...]

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table - a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.

The important thing to remember is that the conclusion of WWII, the end of the Vietnam War and the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis were all failures of US policy, leaving tyrannical governments in place despite a lot of noisy theatrics on our part. And all were driven by the unwillingness of presidents to do what should have been done, even if there was little support for it among the voters. If, in this case, George W. Bush does pursue his vision to its conclusion he will have to do so against the tide of world and domestic opinion and it would be that willingness, rather than the scope of the vision, that would be truly historic. This being a democracy one can have little faith that he will do so, but at least he's doing the right thing for now. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2003 7:26 AM