Not his father's war

By Charles Bloomer
web posted October 8, 2001

A common criticism of military leadership in any crisis is that
generals tend to fight the last war. This criticism typically comes
from the press that thinks military leaders are inflexible and
incapable of adapting to current circumstances.

The criticism today, though, applies more to the press than to our
military and political leadership in the war against terrorism. It
appears that the press has been unable or unwilling to understand
President Bush's approach to the current crisis, despite the fact
that President Bush has been clear and concise in relating his
strategy.

The United States' war on terrorism differs significantly from
previous wars. Every war or conflict we have engaged in has
been directed toward a clearly identifiable enemy associated with
a state or states. Even our wars against "concepts", such as
Nazism or Communism, have had countries that personified
those concepts. This time, however, our efforts are to be
directed toward a more nebulous enemy, an enemy not directly
associated with any particular country.

President Bush seems to have clearly grasped the circumstances
surrounding the war on terrorism. He has stated clearly that this
war will be directed against terrorists and those countries that
harbor or support terrorists. The primary targets of this conflict
will be the terrorists "of global reach", wherever they are.
Secondarily, those states that willingly support terrorists and fund
their activities will be attacked.

The president has sent Colin Powell, his Secretary of State, out
to work on building an international coalition to assist us in
fighting terrorism. The critics were quick to criticize this action on
two fronts. First, the makeup of the coalition has been
determined to be unsatisfactory because it includes countries that
are considered supporters of terrorism. This criticism assumes
that any coalition that we develop will be permanent, and that the
members of the coalition will have undue influence on the
decisions and actions of the United States. Second, Secretary
Powell has been criticized for his desire to approach this
problem using diplomacy and international influence.

On both counts, the critics seem to have ignored what the
president told us and the rest of the world. The president is
developing a fluid coalition, a coalition of members that are
willing at any given time to support our actions. When those
countries no longer support us, they are free to drop out,
especially as the US turns its attention to terrorist bases in
countries outside of Afghanistan. The administration has made
clear that the mission will drive the coalition; the coalition will not
drive the mission. This point is amply summarized in President
Bush's statement, "you are either with us, or you are with the
terrorists". Other countries, other governments who desire to join
in our fight with terrorism are welcome. But the United States
will pursue its goals and mission regardless. No one will dictate
to us the terms of our national security.

The actions of the Secretary Powell should come as no surprise,
nor should they indicate some sort of ominous schism in the
administration. The Secretary of State is the president's senior
diplomat, whose job it is to deal with the world using diplomacy
and influence. That Secretary Powell is not acting bellicose is not
a sign that the US is going soft or is not prepared to use force to
achieve its mission.

The president has stated that this will be a war on many fronts.
Diplomacy is one of those fronts. Just as the administration has
frozen assets of suspected terrorist groups on the financial front,
so too the administration is applying pressure on the diplomatic
front, while at the same time, making military preparations.

President Bush was smart enough to surround himself with good
people. He did not chose for his cabinet a bunch of "yes-men".
He chose his advisers based on their knowledge and expertise.
That these advisers may disagree should come as no surprise.
The president understands the relationship between him and his
cabinet members - they advise, he makes the decisions. The
president will make better decisions when presented with several
sides to an issue than he would if he listened to sycophants who
tell him what they think he wants to hear.

President Bush has done much better grasping the complexity of
his proposed war on terrorism than has the press and other
organizations, including our allies at NATO. He realizes that this
is not his father's war. The president has come up with a
complex war plan that reflects the complexity of the problem.
This time the critics are trying to fight the last war.

Charles Bloomer is a Senior Writer at Enter Stage Right. He can
be contacted at clbloomer@enterstageright.com. (c) 2001
Charles Bloomer

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com