Expediency vs Honesty
From Zanecorpwiki
I believe that history will recall Robert Gates as one of the most effective and important figures of the current times. His most important quality is not only his belief in, but his ability to communicate. Communication is central to achieving goals in any non-individual venture, but it is also the key to figuring out what those goals should be.
Of all the figures of the current administration, he's the only one which I agree with most of the time. And not only that, but I agree with him 95% of the time in what he says. Not because everything he says agrees with the mountain of facts I've accumulated about the various policies he comments on (largely because I only have a mountain of facts on some of the policies), but it's the way he says it. Again, the man is a great communicator. He makes me believe.
That belief is as much a function of the style and tone as his effectiveness. Rather than focus on why we should be fearful because of things in the past so don't worry about the future, he acknowledges the past but focuses on the future and how we can make it better. It's not so much hope versus fear--though that's part of it--as it is openness versus secrecy. Not that Gates details his future plans, but the fact that he talks about what we will do in a substantive way that goes beyond immediate reactions.
Today, I saw an interview with Gates on Charlie Rose (TODO: reference 12/18/08), and it largely confirmed and reinforced my assessment of the man. There were only two points of contention, one of them quite minor.
The more significant point was when Gates asserted that prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that everyone believed he had weapons of mass destruction... because Saddam Hussein wanted them to believe that he did. (I'm paraphrasing.) He then pointed to the UN resolution and more or less blamed Hussein for the invasion. My feeling is that had the question been why did we invade there would have probably been a more sophisticated answer, so I wouldn't, at this point deign to judge how much of a factor Saddam's dissembling was, but as far as it went in the interview, that was the nut of it.
The problem is that I remember very clearly (and have the saved articles to back it up) that there was very little reason to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was somewhat resistant at first, but as it became clear that the US was willing, and perhaps even hoping for an invasion, the inspectors on the ground always said that they couldn't find any weapons of mass destruction and there was no reason at all to believe otherwise. They thought their access was more than sufficient. This was all known before the fact, and there was never any credible evidence presented to contradict the only people that we know had good information on the subject.
In short, either I'm missing something huge or Gates is whitewashing what is probably the single most important question of this decade: did the US government knowingly lie it's way into a war of aggression? I understand why one might want to let it pass, but all the reasons why one might be tempted to just move on are exactly the reasons we can't move on.
The other point on which I had issue was Gate's refusal to talk about the performance of previous Secretaries of Defense and their handling. To be fair, the question, in both instances, was posed as could you have done better and Gate's answer was, quite appropriately, I'm not going to go down that road.
The problem is that this is a minor version of the first problem. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about the past, to talk about the mistakes, and to call our errors out even if it means we lose faith in individuals or even criminal prosecutions. This can all be done diplomatically. One can say, I don't know if I could have done better at the time, but we now know that these were the mistakes made...
By honesty, I don't mean to imply that Gates is lying. He may very well believe what he is saying. However, in my view it's still a dishonest statement because the facts do not support his statement and the implications. Even if we were to grant that Saddam may have been working on or even possessed some limited WMD, there was no reason to believe that he would or could use them and there was absolutely no threat of imminent danger. None. The invasion of 2003 was in way supported. Even our after the fact information merely served to further undermine any claims to the contrary.
The only honest answer to why or should we have invaded Iraq is we made a mistake. Forgive individual actors all you want, and we can discuss who knew what when and why they may have thought it wasn't a mistake, but it was. That's all it ever was, and that's all it ever will be.
If we are to be an honest nation--which is a necessary prerequisite to being a great nation--we must be honest in this. It's good in so many that we're focusing on hope rather than fear. It's a switch in tactics that gives us a shot at being effective again--in the world and domestically. Many people, and I believe this is the underlying justification for our current dishonesty, believe that effectiveness is best served by expediency. The problem is that honesty is at odds with expediency and we must choose to risk something to become a great nation or fail regardless, for my fear is that no matter how effective we become, we must also became great and one cannot have greatness without honesty.
