David Brook on the Mind of Bush
New York Times - September 14, 2006
Ends Without Means
By DAVID BROOKS
A leader’s first job is to project authority, and George Bush
certainly does that. In a 90-minute interview with a few columnists
in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Bush swallowed up the room, crouching
forward to energetically make a point or spreading his arms wide to
illustrate the scope of his ideas — always projecting confidence and
intensity.
He opened the session by declaring, “Let me just first tell you that
I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the
right decisions,” and he grew more self-assured from there. I
interview politicians for a living, and every time I brush against
Bush I’m reminded that this guy is different. There’s none of that
hunger for approval that is common to the breed. This is the most
inner-directed man on the globe.
The other striking feature of his conversation is that he possesses
an unusual perception of time. Washington, and modern life in
general, encourages people to think in the short term. But Bush, who
stands aloof, thinks in long durations.
“I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a
culture,” he says, referring to his campaign against the instant
gratifications of the 1960’s counterculture. And he sees his efforts
today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like
many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into
the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with
speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends — the
current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.
All of which prepares him to think about the war on terror as a
generations-long struggle. He asked us to think about what the world
could look like 50 years from now, with Islamic radicals either
controlling the world’s oil supply or not. “I firmly believe that
some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in
time, saying, ‘Thank goodness they saw the vision,’ ” he said.
Sitting between busts of Lincoln and Churchill, he continued, “My
hope is to leave behind something — foundations and institutions that
will enable future presidents to be able to more likely make the
tough decisions that they’re going to have to make.”
“Ideological struggles take time,” he said, explaining the turmoil in
Iraq and elsewhere. He said the events of weeks or months were just a
nanosecond compared with the long course of this conflict. He was
passionate on the need for patience and steadfastness. He talked
about “inviolate” principles written upon his heart: “People want you
to change. It’s tactics that shift, but the strategic vision has not,
and will not, shift.”
He was less personal and less assertive when talking about those
tactical decisions made day to day.
We are now at a moment when many of the people who support his long-
term goals, and who have stuck with him as the situation in Iraq has
deteriorated, fear the war is irreparably lost. The general view
among many Republicans is that Bush set out grand goals, but never
committed resources commensurate with the task.
Bush was pressed about Iraqi troop levels repeatedly during our
interview. His general response was that during Vietnam, tactical
decisions were made in the White House. “I thought it was a mistake
then, and I think it’s a mistake now.”
So on troop levels and other tactical issues, Bush defers to Gen.
George Casey, who is in Iraq. He asks questions but does not
contradict the experts. If Casey asked for two more divisions
tomorrow, Bush would deliver, regardless of the political
consequences. But Casey does not ask (and maybe none are available).
What if Casey is wrong?
“Then I picked the wrong general,” Bush says bluntly. “If he’s wrong,
I’m wrong.”
When asked if he should have expanded the military back in 2003, to
give the current commanders more manpower, Bush used words that were
uncharacteristically jargon-ridden: “The notion of warfare has
changed, and therefore, we’re modulizing the army so that it becomes
more operational and easier to move.” That sounds more like a
transformation briefing paper than the president.
In other words, when Bush is strategizing goals, he is assertiveness
on stilts. When he is contemplating means, he defers to authority.
And the sad truth is, there has been a gap between Bush’s visions and
the means his administration has devoted to realize them. And when
tactics do not adjust to fit the strategy, then the strategy
eventually gets diminished to fit the tactics.
Or worse.