Is the Failure to Plan "The Plan"?

Gerard Vanderleun has some disturbing observations about President Obama's recent decision not to decide about Afghanistan. Worth reading, even if the piece makes you uncomfortable.

There are other sensible explanations for Obama's actions, but some of Vanderleun's observations fit Obama's pattern of behavior in office concerning other issues, such as letting Congress take responsibility for Stimulus and Healthcare. [Obama also expects Congress to take the heat for these decisions. He even likens the upcoming sacrifice of elected office for many congressional Democrats (to be rewarded with cushy Washington appointments) to sacrifices made by members of the military. Because Americans will still be angry about the recent government power-grabs at election time. But sacrifice is necessary in order to sign into law the statutes and rule-making powers which will allow bureaucrats to enforce "fairness", according to the Democrat's model, from Washington.]

From where I sit I see many people underestimating President Obama because they cannot get their heads around who and what this man actually is and what he portends. Instead, historical or metaphoric analysis prevails making Obama like “Lincoln” or “Stalin,” like an "angel" or a "devil." Regardless of the comparisons evoked they all fail because Obama is none of these. He is "None of the above." He is not "That what came before." He is all of "What shall come after." (emphasis mine)

Politically and personally, Obama is a genetic sport, a Chimera; a now not-so-mythical being composed of multiple parts but functioning as a whole. Neither America nor the world has seen his like before. Attempts to analyze him that appeal to history fail because there is no historical precedent. That was, you will recall, part of his mystic allure. As a result many ascribe motives to the president that cannot be accurate; motives that run counter to the blunt evidence of the senses, to the maxim: “Watch what he does, not what he says.” . .

There are two benefits to Obama’s decision not to decide in Afghanistan:

1) It increases the instability of Pakistan and makes the likelihood of a radical Muslim coup in that country greater. This would, in one day, bring the control of nuclear weapons into radical Muslim hands. No waiting for Iran to get its act together. It also means that a vast sector of the world, from India to England falls under the spectre of a nuclear holocaust on a hair trigger. If you believe that great creation arises from great destruction, this is to your benefit.

2) It lowers the morale and effectiveness of the US military from the Joint Chiefs of Staff down to Private Grunt on patrol in Kandahar. Since the ultimate check to a politician’s power is always found in the military, anything that decreases that element is always to the politician’s benefit. If you can reduce the budget for the military at the same time you increase its responsibilities, so much the better.

None of this makes much sense if your goal is the improvement of the nation you are sworn to protect and defend. If, however, your goal is to enter history at the level of an Alexander or a Caesar, deciding not to decide is a decision you will implement for as long as possible.

Not that Alexander the Great did his empire-building through indecision. Different strategies for different situations. But Obama did promise to be a transformative president. He wants to lessen America's status as a "superpower" and to increase the power of international governing bodies. And he grew up around and studied with people who really believed in creative destruction. Is indecision one of his techniques for encouraging creative destruction of the status quo?

It may be worthwhile to remember that, though he started out with some good ideas for building an empire, Alexander's empire fell apart very rapidly. He didn't have the executive aptitude or skills to transition from conqueror to administrator, and he also became distracted by the "fun part" of being an emperor.

There was practically no examiniation of Obama's executive skills before he became the President. He is a masterful campaigner, which fact was put forward as proof of his executive abilities. His only known executive experience outside of political campaigns (with the Woods Foundation) was not a success. We will need to watch carefully to see what he does, not just what he says. It is important to determine how much he believes in the necessity of creative destruction and/or if he has the ability to create something better from the wreckage of the things his current policies are likely, or in some cases certain, to destroy.

Vanderleun links this poem by Robert Frost:

Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.