by Dean Hartwell
In my book, Truth Matters: How the Voters Can Take Back Their Nation, I list three qualities a good leader possesses. These qualities are the ability to speak clearly, the willingness to ask for sacrifice and the presentation of worthy societal goals.
How well is President Bush leading the United States?
Clear statement
– The President has not
always been clear about the purpose of fighting Iraq. Is it to enforce inspections of sites for weapons or is to cause
a “regime change”? When an administration
changes reasons, the public and the rest of the world have trouble following
the message.
None of the Bush Administration’s reasons for going to war make much sense. If the need to remove Hussein is urgent, why has the United States waited so long? It has been almost twelve years since the U.S. defeated Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and almost two since the Administration came into power.
If the U.S. must attack because Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, how can it be certain he will not attack us in response with those weapons?
If the United States is concerned about his nuclear capacity, why doesn’t it show the same concern for the many other nations (like India and Pakistan) who have them?
Too many questions linger because President Bush has not been clear about his purpose. To lead effectively, he must describe his goals with more specificity and consistency.
Sacrifice – President Bush has threatened to use force against Iraq, but has failed to acknowledge the sacrifice of U.S. and Iraqi lives that it requires. He has also ignored the high economic cost of war, especially significant during a time of budget deficit and slow economic growth.
A call for sacrifice would involve an acknowledgment of the loss of U.S. and Iraqi lives. The lack of war service among many in the Administration may well explain the lack of focus upon the likely sacrifice of lives.
Present ideas
of value to society – If
society would benefit from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it needs to hear
how that will be the case. President
Bush has said little about the aftermath of such an action, which casts doubts
upon its value.
Who would replace Hussein? If it would be a person of the United States’ choosing, it risks the possibility that some people in Iraq would resent a U.S. “puppet” and start their own overthrow attempt. On the other hand, staying out of the process of picking Iraqi’s leader would risk the Iraqis selecting a leader like Hussein.
How long would the U.S. stay in Iraq after an overthrow? The longer it stays, the greater the financial costs. But, leaving quickly could give pro-Hussein elements a chance to seize power again. In any event, the benefits to the Iraqis and to the rest of the world of a post-Hussein Iraq should be articulated.
Under the Truth Matters Presidential Leadership Test, President Bush’s handling so far of the situation with Iraq scores low. He can better his score, and thus his leadership, by clarifying his purpose, acknowledging the sacrifice and by answering questions about his goals.