RSS Feed MenuThe media are sure to laud President Obama for forthrightly addressing, earlier today, the intelligence failures that caused the Christmas Day terrorist attack on Flight 253 in Detroit. Shortly after the president’s speech, in fact, the New York Times published a laudatory article praising Obama for ordering
a series of steps to improve the government’s ability to collect, share, analyze and act on intelligence of terrorist threats. [This to address] significant shortcomings in national security…
‘We are at war,’ Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House State Dining Room…
The president said the missteps were not the fault of one individual or one agency. He took responsibility for the failures, saying: ‘The buck stops with me.’
This is all well and good — and also largely irrelevant. President Obama, after all, has mastered the rhetorical arts. He seems always to say the right words — or at least the words that our elites want to hear and are sure to swoon over. (I myself am far less enamored of the president’s rhetoric, as I’ve explained here at FrumForum and elsewhere.)
But the president’s problem is not one of rhetoric per se; it is one of leadership. Simply put, the War on Terror requires constant vigilance and attention. This is not a war you can commute to or conduct only half-heartedly, as General David Petraeus has explained.
Yet, rarely has Obama used the bully pulpit to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and the Jihadists. His interests and his passions clearly lie elsewhere — with healthcare, and with a fundamental strengthening of the state’s role vis-à-vis the individual. That’s why he’s spent most of his time and effort — with Congress, the public, and the media — focused on healthcare.
If the president’s priority is “comprehensive healthcare reform,” then this makes total sense. But if we truly are at war — and Obama acknowledges that we are — then the president’s priorities are simply wrong and misplaced. He ought to use his rhetorical gifts and the power of the bully pulpit to win the war, not micromanage and bureaucratize the American healthcare system.
In short, the president now says some right words, but his actions betray him.
This is a real problem because bureaucracy responds to political leadership. Bureaucracy takes it cues from political leadership. Bureaucracy senses what the commander-in-chief thinks is important and acts accordingly — and if it doesn’t hear the president talk much about the War on Terror, then it draws the obvious conclusion: The War on Terror isn’t that important to this commander-in-chief and his administration.
Consequently, bureaucratic laxness sets in and foot-dragging occurs. Human frailty and human error rise to the fore. The fundamental changes that are integral to true and necessary reform never occur — or if they do, they occur belatedly, sporadically, and intermittently. The system, at its core, never really changes, only its outward most manifestations.
Something very much like this has happened with U.S. intelligence agencies — which is why the U.S. National Security Adviser, General James L. Jones, said people will feel “a certain shock” after reading the White House’s initial account of the Christmas Day terrorist attack.
But it’s really not that shocking when you consider that the War on Terror simply hasn’t been this administration’s top priority. Indeed, as Heritage Foundation analyst James Carafano has observed:
It is not enough to blame the system and human error. There will always be human failures and system failures… The reality is that the system itself isn’t broken. It is that folks inside the Executive Branch did not use the system appropriately.
Seen in this context, the intelligence agencies should not be apologizing to President Obama; President Obama should be apologizing to the intelligence agencies — for giving the War on Terror short shrift vis-à-vis healthcare and other domestic issues.
Yet, the Deputy National Security Adviser, John Brennan, told reporters today that he apologized to the president. “I told the president today: I let him down. I told him I will do better; we will do better as a team.”
Bully for Brennan for accepting responsibility for the shocking Christmas Day failure — and near disaster — in the War on Terror; however, Obama is right: The buck stops with him as commander-in-chief.
That’s why, if he’s serious about winning the war, Obama will suspend his push for a secret healthcare deal and demand that Congress start over with truly bipartisan healthcare legislation. The attempt to ram through Congress, along a strict party-line vote, an extreme and contentious bill has proven extraordinarily divisive and politically polarizing. It has divided America and Americans at a time when we need much greater unity of purpose and resolve.
Worse yet, healthcare bureaucratization is a serious distraction from the most important task at hand, which is to reverse America’s downward trajectory and to win the War on Terror.
Yet, Obama typically suggests the opposite: He suggests that the War on Terror is the distraction from healthcare and other domestic priorities. Thus his speech at West Point, where he said that “broader consideration[s],” including economic factors and “competition within the global economy,” limit America’s ability to protect the national interest abroad.
“We simply can’t afford to ignore the price of these wars,” Obama lamented. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan account for little more than one percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product. Yet, in Obama’s mind, that’s somehow too exorbitant a cost to bear to “assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
This must stop. It’s high past time for the president to acknowledge that winning the War on Terror is his most important, overriding responsibility. Everything else — including so-called comprehensive healthcare reform — is secondary.
Obama also must use his great rhetorical gifts to rally the American people — and the world — to confront the fundamental crisis of our time, which is international terrorism and the Jihadist threat.
This means immediately giving a series of speeches about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, radical Islam, and the overall War on Terror. It means pounding the bully pulpit more consistently — and not just when it’s politically convenient and politically necessary — to tame, reform and refocus the bureaucracy. It means recognizing and seizing the historical moment to do what must be done. It means, Mr. President, embracing your role as a wartime commander-in-chief.
balconesfault // Jan 8, 2010 at 1:53 pm
This argument would sound a lot more persuasive if George W. Bush, Tom DeLay et al. had not pursued equally cynical and divisive policies while THEY were in charge
Actually, that raises a good question – in 2005, conditions in Afghanistan AND Iraq both deteriorated badly. Meanwhile, Bush spent much of the first few months of that year campaigning hard for a privatization of part of our Social Security Trust Fund. By this logic it’s rational to conclude that the declining security conditions in both wars during that time were directly attributable to Bush being distracted while trying to push through an “extraordinarily divisive and politically polarizing” agenda.
trajan // Jan 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm
John, why do you bother blogging on this God foresaken site? You must be some kind of masochist. It’s not a “peanut gallery”, it’s a bunch of morons. “Politicizing terrorism”! “The war on terror is a stupid fantasy.” Talk about arguing with idiots.
mlindroo // Jan 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Trajan wrote:
> “The war on terror is a stupid fantasy.” Talk about arguing with idiots.
Actually, when it comes to terrorism, Republicans need to do two things. One, grow a spine. Two, testicular fortitude.. There have been approx. ONE HUNDRED MILLION flights since late 1999, FOUR of which have been targeted by terrorists (plus two miserable failures after 9/11).
Funny how the Bush years were full of macho swagger, talk about “girlie men” etc. yet guess who’s panicking every time there’s a failed terrorist plot?
MARCU$
rbottoms // Jan 8, 2010 at 6:11 pm
But Turkey Lurky says the sky is falling!
mlindroo // Jan 8, 2010 at 6:14 pm
> He ought to use his rhetorical gifts and the power of the bully pulpit to win the war,
> not micromanage and bureaucratize the American healthcare system.
> In short, the president now says some right words, but his actions betray him.
> This is a real problem because bureaucracy responds to political leadership.
> Bureaucracy takes it cues from political leadership.
> Bureaucracy senses what the commander-in-chief thinks is important and acts
> accordingly — and if it doesn’t hear the president talk much about the War on Terror,
> then it draws the obvious conclusion: The War on Terror isn’t that important to this
> commander-in-chief and his administration.
> Consequently, bureaucratic laxness sets in and foot-dragging occurs.
> Human frailty and human error rise to the fore.
What an utter load of BS, from start to finish.
Does John Guardiano feel that, for example, the George W. Bush Administration should not have done something about the banking crisis last year… After all, the measures taken are certainly dismissed as “divisive micromanagement” by a very significant part of the (tea party attending) population. Why the hell is TARP etc. OK while health care reform isn’t? Conservatives hate both which of course means they “undermine national unity” while making it harder to win the global war on terror.
Guardiano seems to be a deeply insecure person who constantly needs encouragement and stirring speeches from his Commander in Chief. We have his previous column whining about Obama’s West Point speech, which supposedly left the brave men and women of the armed forces “demoralized.” Boo hoo!! As if professional soldiers and antiterrorism officials were not strong willed and conscientious enough to do the right thing!
MARCU$
trajan // Jan 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm
mlindroo pontificated:
Actually, when it comes to terrorism, Republicans need to do two things. One, grow a spine. Two, testicular fortitude.. There have been approx. ONE HUNDRED MILLION flights since late 1999, FOUR of which have been targeted by terrorists (plus two miserable failures after 9/11).
Funny how the Bush years were full of macho swagger, talk about “girlie men” etc. yet guess who’s panicking every time there’s a failed terrorist plot?
Completely incomprehensible. What did I tell you? Or maybe one of the morons (you know who you are so weigh in) can explain.
Mandos // Jan 8, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I thought mlindroo’s post was completely comprehensible and quite cogent. It quite correctly suggested that the threat from terrorism is actually extremely miniscule, by a simple look at the numbers.
trajan // Jan 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I’m not surprised.
Mandos // Jan 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Not surprised about what?
Danny_K // Jan 8, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I appreciate the polite response, Mr G. I’ll give you a more explicit and less snarky response.
I would like you to show me another wartime President who didn’t do anything else during the war. FDR? Coolidge? Abraham Lincoln, for pity’s sake? They all fought big-time wars and still took care of the country’s business. It’s only Obama who’s not allowed to do anything but fight a seemingly endless war. That’s why I call this ‘politicizing’ rather than honest critique.
BoolaBoola // Jan 8, 2010 at 9:33 pm
This idea that we should stop pushing health-care reform and focus on fighting terror is very wrong.
The terrrorists’ goal is to bankrupt USA, right? Well if we don’t fix our health-care mess, IT will bankrupt USA and the terrorists will win. Our health-care non-system is causing THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION bankruptcies in USA every year.
The best thing we can do to stop terrorists from acheiving their goals is, pass health-care reform.
Anyone who opposes health-care reform is FIGHTING FOR THE ENEMY in the war on terror.
Anyone who votes against health-care reform is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and should be charged with treason.
athensboy // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm
With guys like John it will never be good enough, no matter how loud Obama yells about terrorists.John’s mind is already made up, Obama is not good enough to be his president.John is in the group of Hanitty and Rush that attack Obama 24/7 hoping something will stick. Maybe John thinks all this will make us forget what a horrible foreign policy president W was.All guys like John want to do is fight and kill and attack. Makes him feel like a real man. Yes John, lets attack some more countries, like were cowboys, cuz you know, it will make you feel like a man.Neo cons are a joke, and so are you.
COProgressive // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Mandos @ 32 wrote;
“It quite correctly suggested that the threat from terrorism is actually extremely miniscule, by a simple look at the numbers.”
Stephen Colbert had it right the other night when he said, and I’ll paraphase, “Do we mantain our liberties and freedoms and risk the slight possibility of attack, or do we give up all our liberties and freedoms and risk the slight possibility of attack?”
trajan // Jan 8, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Would you care to speculate on what Colbert would have said if he’d been a passenger on Flight 253?
Maybe you should ask some of the passengers what they think. As far as “miniscule” is concerned, hey, there were only about 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the population of the US is around 300 million so what’s the problem? You do the math genius. You’ll probably need a calculator.
rbottoms // Jan 8, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Would you care to speculate on what Colbert would have said if he’d been a passenger on Flight 253?
Maybe you should ask some of the passengers what they think. As far as “miniscule” is concerned, hey, there were only about 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the population of the US is around 300 million so what’s the problem? You do the math genius. You’ll probably need a calculator.
By God if you can’t get the threat level to zero consider the entire military budget a waste of money!!
You have a better chance of walking into a robbery at Seven-Eleven than being killed by Al Queada.
When did the GOP become such a bunch of p***ys.
Mandos // Jan 9, 2010 at 12:13 am
Answer: When they realized that scared and distracted people are also easier to pickpocket. (Same to some large extent for Democrats, but…)
Kanzeon // Jan 9, 2010 at 12:42 am
mlindroo:
“Actually, when it comes to terrorism, Republicans need to do two things. One, grow a spine. Two, testicular fortitude.”
The Republicans aren’t any more afraid of terrorists than you are.
I remember when people were very afraid – in the six months to year after September 11, 2001. What did they do? The stood behind the commander in chief. I remember those days well. I didn’t vote for Bush, and considered him completely inadequate for the job even without a major crisis. But, I looked around and saw this was the card that had been dealt us, and that we didn’t have any choice but to follow his lead.
When people are afraid, when they feel beseiged, they they are at war, they tend to stand by their leaders.
The problem has nothing to do with testicular fortitude.
jakester // Jan 9, 2010 at 3:30 am
This guy could have been stopped using simple protocols 35 years old. Someone more than screwed up. Obama is president so the ball is in his court. He has to fix it or face the heat, not come up with gee whiz solutions for old fashioned incompetence or worse.
rbottoms // Jan 9, 2010 at 3:51 am
He has to fix it or face the heat, not come up with gee whiz solutions for old fashioned incompetence or worse.
If not who knows what might happen, we could lose a few thousand people in a single day. Who could ever support a leader who let that happen.
SFTor1 // Jan 9, 2010 at 12:20 pm
It seems to me that the best two things the President could do to reduce the treat of terrorist attacks are a) to get involved in Palestine, and force the Israelis to back down from their relentless expansionism (where’s James Baker when you need him?), and b) deftly goose along the velvet revolution in Iran.
We’ve tried the Republican approach. It got us into the mess we find ourselves in today.
mlindroo // Jan 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Trajan wrote:
>Would you care to speculate on what Colbert would have said
> if he’d been a passenger on Flight 253?
> Maybe you should ask some of the passengers what they think.
>As far as “miniscule” is concerned, hey, there were only about
> 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the population of the US is around
> 300 million so what’s the problem?
My point stands.
Nate Silver points out the odds of being on a plane attacked by terrorists have been 1 in 10.5 million over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. While the threat is not negligible by any means, it is indeed comparatively minuscule which means Guardiano’s original post was way over the top.
As President of the US, Obama is of course ultimately responsible and it’s good to hear him say the buck stops at this desk and there will be some reorganization (in contrast, GW Bush was very happy with CIA et.al. after 9/11 wasn’t he?). But the so-called “War on Terrorism” is NOT the single greatest threat/issue currently facing ordinary Americans. Anyone arguing otherwise is stupid, a spineless coward or both.
MARCU$