From the Archives: President Bush all in on 8-3 offsuit (January 30, 2007)
This story originally appeared in The Daily Tar Heel.
President Bush all in on 8-3 offsuit
By David Donovan
January 30, 2007
President Bush has decided, and once he decides, nothing, neither fact nor reason, will move him. This month he decided to send 21,000 more soldiers into Iraq under the delusion that this modest increase will reverse an uninterrupted descent into chaos.
One columnist already eloquently addressed the shortcomings of this decision. I'd like to address the shortcomings of The Decider. Our generation, which came of age during this administration, will guard the memory of how badly it screwed up and insist that our decisions are never again entrusted to leaders so reckless.
I am not an expert in military strategy, but I've spent a lot of time at poker tables and consider myself an expert of the psyche of the degenerate gambler. When I see this president, I don't see a commander in chief. I see an arrogant gambler who'll wager away his last dime before he'll admit that he's lost.
The sad destruction of the unwise gambler works like this: He gambles and loses. Where wiser men admit defeat and walk away, he's too cocky to admit he could be beat. If he's lost more than he can win back at the current stakes, he simply raises the stakes. This is what Bush basically has done in Iraq: He's doubled down with more troops. If it doesn't work, the gambler loses everything, including his last shred of dignity.
In a casino, the loser winds up broke and crying into a glass of scotch. In politics, he drops to 30 percent approval. It would be fine if he were playing only with his own legacy, but the losses are measured in other people's lives.
Here's the problem. If Bush pulls out now, he'll be resigned to history's judgment as a loser. For him, a loss is a loss, but for the country, there are consequences to how many lives and how much prestige we lose in the gamble. To borrow one last analogy, Bush is throwing good money - billions of it - after bad. The proof of Bush's assurance that he can break even is his answer to why this escalation would work: "Because I told (the generals) it had to." Apparently it'll work if we just wish hard enough.
I don't know how we fix Iraq. Someone compared it to breaking a raw egg and asking how to put it back together. I fear our presence does nothing but delay the inevitable. But I do see the lessons we can take from this misadventure in choosing future leaders.
First, Bush has a pathological aversion to admitting his own fallibility. During the 2004 campaign, Bush was asked to name a mistake he'd made. He couldn't think of one. I know I make mistakes hourly, and I'm not entrusted with anything remotely important. Some admire Bush's confidence, but the hubris it takes to think you can run a country without making mistakes should be a red flag promising incompetence.
Second, even Bush's friends never accuse him of being too bright. I'm amazed we could elect someone prone to sounding like a dummy and not think it'd cause huge problems. Great leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are ones of undeniable brilliance.
Leaders are more than a collection of policies. As we enter the 2008 race, we basically search for a decision maker. We search for someone as much as possible not like George Bush. We search for someone who will encourage constructive criticism instead of isolating and punishing it. We search for someone brilliant yet aware of his or her fallibility. We search for someone willing to change course rather than blindly Staying the Course. I suspect that as long as we remember Iraq, these will be the kinds of leaders we'll hunger for, not those who end up crying at the lonely end of the craps table.
Besides being a gambler, Bush also is a history buff with a desire to leave his mark on U.S. government for decades. He has. Just not the way he intended.
President Bush all in on 8-3 offsuit
By David Donovan
January 30, 2007
President Bush has decided, and once he decides, nothing, neither fact nor reason, will move him. This month he decided to send 21,000 more soldiers into Iraq under the delusion that this modest increase will reverse an uninterrupted descent into chaos.
One columnist already eloquently addressed the shortcomings of this decision. I'd like to address the shortcomings of The Decider. Our generation, which came of age during this administration, will guard the memory of how badly it screwed up and insist that our decisions are never again entrusted to leaders so reckless.
I am not an expert in military strategy, but I've spent a lot of time at poker tables and consider myself an expert of the psyche of the degenerate gambler. When I see this president, I don't see a commander in chief. I see an arrogant gambler who'll wager away his last dime before he'll admit that he's lost.
The sad destruction of the unwise gambler works like this: He gambles and loses. Where wiser men admit defeat and walk away, he's too cocky to admit he could be beat. If he's lost more than he can win back at the current stakes, he simply raises the stakes. This is what Bush basically has done in Iraq: He's doubled down with more troops. If it doesn't work, the gambler loses everything, including his last shred of dignity.
In a casino, the loser winds up broke and crying into a glass of scotch. In politics, he drops to 30 percent approval. It would be fine if he were playing only with his own legacy, but the losses are measured in other people's lives.
Here's the problem. If Bush pulls out now, he'll be resigned to history's judgment as a loser. For him, a loss is a loss, but for the country, there are consequences to how many lives and how much prestige we lose in the gamble. To borrow one last analogy, Bush is throwing good money - billions of it - after bad. The proof of Bush's assurance that he can break even is his answer to why this escalation would work: "Because I told (the generals) it had to." Apparently it'll work if we just wish hard enough.
I don't know how we fix Iraq. Someone compared it to breaking a raw egg and asking how to put it back together. I fear our presence does nothing but delay the inevitable. But I do see the lessons we can take from this misadventure in choosing future leaders.
First, Bush has a pathological aversion to admitting his own fallibility. During the 2004 campaign, Bush was asked to name a mistake he'd made. He couldn't think of one. I know I make mistakes hourly, and I'm not entrusted with anything remotely important. Some admire Bush's confidence, but the hubris it takes to think you can run a country without making mistakes should be a red flag promising incompetence.
Second, even Bush's friends never accuse him of being too bright. I'm amazed we could elect someone prone to sounding like a dummy and not think it'd cause huge problems. Great leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are ones of undeniable brilliance.
Leaders are more than a collection of policies. As we enter the 2008 race, we basically search for a decision maker. We search for someone as much as possible not like George Bush. We search for someone who will encourage constructive criticism instead of isolating and punishing it. We search for someone brilliant yet aware of his or her fallibility. We search for someone willing to change course rather than blindly Staying the Course. I suspect that as long as we remember Iraq, these will be the kinds of leaders we'll hunger for, not those who end up crying at the lonely end of the craps table.
Besides being a gambler, Bush also is a history buff with a desire to leave his mark on U.S. government for decades. He has. Just not the way he intended.
posted by Ithakid | 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home