Decision Points

[a_majoor]

An interesting review of President George W Bush's book Decision Points, and the dangers of large bureaucratic organizations:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/decision-points-insight-into-mismanagement/?singlepage=true

Decision Points: Insight into Mismanagement
Bush's memoir shows the former chief executive to be an admirable man driven by conviction, but doomed by miscommunication in the White House.
November 22, 2010 - by Ryan Mauro
Share |

Decision Points, the recently published memoir of President Bush, shows the former chief executive to be an admirable man driven by conviction, not polls. The false caricature of him as an evil idiot willing to lie so young soldiers can die for his war profiteer buddies is blown away. At the very least, readers will come away with an appreciation for the very tough decisions he had to make.

But at the same time, a trend of mismanagement in the Bush administration is seen, whether it is because of incompetence or the impossibility of trying to steer a ship the size of the federal government.

Bush’s repeated use of the word “blindsided” shows there was a major problem with the dissemination of important information. In one case, the acting attorney general, director of the FBI, and other Justice Department officials all said they would resign from their positions if President Bush extended the Terrorism Surveillance Program without their recommended improvements. Bush did not even know about the opposition until one day before the expiration date. He reacted by implementing the suggested changes, avoiding a political crisis at the last minute.

The same word is used to describe the Abu Ghraib scandal. Bush was informed of the scandal but did not know how vile the photos were until they hit the press. And nothing is said in the book about a major effort to figure out what went wrong. It appears that a major communications problem existed in the Pentagon. Bush says that in 2006, he noticed that a disparity existed between the generals running the Iraq War and the generals implementing it on the ground, with the latter saying more soldiers were necessary. Where along the pipeline was their information blocked from reaching President Bush?

An interesting story is also told about the sharp infighting that, as best detailed in Kenneth R. Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors, severely undermined the policies of the Bush administration. Bush admits that the State Department never fully supported his agenda, and says that he intervened to order Powell and Rumsfeld to fix the unhealthy divisions. “I instructed Condi’s skillful deputy, Steve Hadley, to tell the seconds and thirds to cool it. Nothing worked,” Bush said, referring to the officials below them whose “creative tension had turned destructive.”  It seems as if Bush accepted this as an unavoidable reality.

In 2006, President Bush writes that Clay Johnson told him that other officials had begun using a word that “started with ‘cluster’ and ended with four more letters” to describe the White House’s structure of authority. Johnson drew him an organizational chart. “It was a tangled mess, with lines of authority crossing and blurred,” he writes. Here again we see a massive problem with bureaucracy hindering the ability of the government to move efficiently and quickly in support of its objectives.

This doesn’t mean that Bush fails to admit mistakes in the book — it’s just that this isn’t one of them. He also puzzlingly defends waiting until January 2007 to launch the surge. “If I had acted sooner it could have created a rift that would have been exploited by war critics in Congress to cut off funding and prevent the surge from succeeding,” Bush writes. I’m sorry, but what happened in the aftermath of the announcement? A rift was created and Congress tried to cut off funding for the war unless a firm timetable for withdrawal was established.

This happened because the majority of the American people had turned against the war and wanted troops to begin coming home immediately as violence escalated, especially in 2006. There is no conceivable reason to think that when America was more pro-Iraq War it’d also be more anti-surge. Furthermore, Bush admits it was a mistake to bring troop levels down from 192,000 to 109,000 after Saddam was toppled, many of whom were focused on training Iraqis and not on restoring security. If it was a mistake to bring down troop levels in 2003, why not increase troop levels to correct that mistake before 2007?

Granted, the greater point of the book is the decision-making process, rather than the implementation. When the reader learns how shortly after 9/11 the FBI told the president that there were 331 potential al-Qaeda members in the U.S., the rationale behind controversial programs like the Patriot Act is better understood. When Bush puts his thoughts into words about Saddam Hussein, it is more appreciated why the Iraqi government was seen as a tank of gasoline dangerously close to igniting.

One of the most insightful lines in Bush’s book is when he writes about the catch-22 facing him in trying to stop terrorism. “If none [terrorism] happened, whatever I did would possibly look like an overreaction. If we were attacked again, people would demand to know why I hadn’t done more,” he writes.

Decision Points goes a long way in showing the job of president as mostly unglamorous. The catch-22 outlined by Bush dooms you to failure. The mismanagement pointed out here should not take away from how Bush’s book helps put readers in the driver’s seat, but a discussion of what went wrong and why is warranted. Books by former presidents aren’t only personal stories, but guides for future presidents so they can learn from past mistakes.

Let’s hope that those running for president read Decision Points.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at [email protected].

 

[DBA]

I bought the Deluxe eBook Edition for $9.99 from Amazon.ca and read most of it on my desktop PC only skipping a few chapters on topics I was less interested in. It was well worth reading and gave some good insight into the man himself and the US political system. The most perceptive thought (I think anyway) is the following statement:

"Perceptions are shaped by the clarity of hindsight. In the moment of the decision, you don't have that advantage."

It's easy to see in hindsight which decisions or actions were too late or too early but not so easy to do so in the moment. So a criticism of Bush for something poorly timed rings hollow without at least some analysis of the time period when the decision was made.

 

[jhk87]

You are both assuming, of course, that this isn't a piece of self-justification composed by a ghostwriter with the current political climate in mind, right?

 

[tomahawk6]

What is the current political climate ? You might forget that the left savaged Bush relentlessly for 8 years and now with the left running Washington the climate is different ?

 

[a_majoor]

If President George W Bush "wrote the book with the current political climate in mind", then I would have to ask where his powers of precognition were during his administration?

How else could he have timed writing a book, had it edited and published to arrive so perfectly to coincide with the arrival of 63 conservative congressmen and the capture of multiple State legislatures by the TEA party movement ?

One thing I have noted is President Bush, despite multiple opportunities (including a friendly interview on The O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly practically begged him to) has never bad mouthed the current administration (or his many other detractors during the years). Compare that to the "current political climate" where everything is still somehow his fault...

 

[hold_fast]

One thing I have noted is President Bush, despite multiple opportunities (including a friendly interview on The O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly practically begged him to) has never bad mouthed the current administration (or his many other detractors during the years). Compare that to the "current political climate" where everything is still somehow his fault...

Just because Jack is a respectful boy who minds his manners at dinnertime doesn't mean he plays nice at school.
You can be respectful, honourable, polite, and yet still be a complete twit.

 

[jhk87]

I would hardly say that the current political climate pins everything on GWB. Mr. Obama seems to be at fault for everything for both not giving enough stimulus and spending money on the economy (as opposed, say, to bombing the Middle East.)

The rather toxic atmosphere of American politics, spurred on by a reactionary religious right, has been simmering for some time now. And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.

Good on him, though, for maintaining the general tradition among ex-presidents for not being a douche and generally confining himself to selling books and acting as the cause celebre for such acitivites as raising money for Haiti.

 

[tomahawk6]

I would hardly say that the current political climate pins everything on GWB. Mr. Obama seems to be at fault for everything for both not giving enough stimulus and spending money on the economy (as opposed, say, to bombing the Middle East.)

The rather toxic atmosphere of American politics, spurred on by a reactionary religious right, has been simmering for some time now. And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.

Good on him, though, for maintaining the general tradition among ex-presidents for not being a douche and generally confining himself to selling books and acting as the cause celebre for such acitivites as raising money for Haiti.

The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.

 

[hold_fast]

The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.

Oh, yes, certainly!
Watch out for their Zionism and radical gay agendas! NWO! UFO! Roswell!

Jesus.

 

[Redeye]

The "Left" controls the media?!  Please.  That's quite a whopper.  The "Left" doesn't have a propaganda machine that pumps out lies incessantly like Fox "News".  The closest thing to that might reasonably be assesses as MSNBC which has a few very, very good commentators.  Or perhaps NPR, the right's latest target, which has nowhere near the influence Fox News does.  It's a sad comment on the state of the media in America when it's comedians and satirists doing much of the calling out of people like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and a host of other propagandists.  It's noteworthy that there's a fairly significant imbalance between the number of times these folks wind up with lies being called out on factchecking websites of various descriptions.  Frankly, I'm amazed that any intelligent person listens to them, because it's so obvious that they have nothing to offer except strange conspiracy theories, half-cocked arguments, etc.

Part of the right's big strategy seems to allow media to erode in quality and to dumb down the voting public so that they start to accept lies as truth.  They're polishing their messages about extensions of completely unaffordable tax cuts right now, building them around the completely ridiculous Laffer Curve argument that tax cuts will somehow a) stimulate job creation and b) actually increase - or at least not change - tax revenue.  That's been demonstrated to be false repeatedly.  Trickle down doesn't work, period.

Then they argue that extending (miserly) unemployment benefits to the so called "99'ers" whose benefits are running out must be paid for.  So, borrow from China to fund a handout to millionaires and billionaires, but not to carry on something that keeps some people from slipping into abject poverty AND happens to be extremely stimulative.  Why?  Those wealthy folks don't spend their tax cuts generally, not nearly to the extent that UI benefits are immediately spent back into the economy.

See, what I've found with the American rabid right in particular (through their blogs, their twitter feeds, etc) seems to prove some very wise observations of a particularly ominous regime in history they seem hell-bent on recreating - "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."  This seems to be an alarming trend in American politics in particular of late.

Sadly, they seem to prove a great thinker I enjoy right, John Stuart Mill: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

As for Decision Points, it was highlighted that Bush has been very careful not to attack the current administration, and that's good of him.  I actually don't have much animosity for him, he was clearly just a pawn of much more sinister folks.

The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:

See, what I've found with the American rabid right in particular (through their blogs, their twitter feeds, etc) seems to prove some very wise observations of a particularly ominous regime in history they seem hell-bent on recreating - "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."  This seems to be an alarming trend in American politics in particular of late.

And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.

GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.

 

[TheHead]

This is the pathetic state politics has turned into in both our countries.  The right does nothing but attack the left and the left does nothing but attack the right.    Everyone is to blame but themselves and no one has an ounce of accountablity.  I do agree with the above posters though the right has their own media.  Even though the opinion pieces on Fox News are absolute jokes and it's a wonder people watch shit like Bill O, Hannity and Glen Beck.  The comment that the left controls the media is right out to lunch. 

Anyways judge Bush how you will.  He may not be the best speaker but he was far from a moron like most lambast him as. 

 

[Redeye]

Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:
GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.

Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.

Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.

The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.  The American voting public is being dumbed down and propagandized in a way not perhaps not seen since... well... you know.

 

[TheHead]

Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:
GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.

He does have a MBA at Harvard.  He is actually the only President to have earned one, but I may be msitaken.

 

[vonGarvin]

Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.

Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.

The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.

Earlier, someone made an accusation that I had made an ad hominem attack.  This is a perfect example of ad hominem, in case that poster is looking for an example.

The American voting public is being dumbed down and propagandized in a way not perhaps not seen since... well... you know.

Since this time, perhaps?

 

[Redeye]

Attacking the man isn't the point - the point is that the message, the entire set of ideas being propagated is poisonous to the very idea of the political process, and frankly, it comes almost entirely from the right of the spectrum.  In fact, I would opine that Obama's biggest problem is that he's trying to play nice when he should just bash on with what he wants to do and can the idea of bipartisanship, because it's becoming clear that the GOP idea of "compromise" is when they get their way.  The hypocrisy emerging from their camp is staggering, particularly the tax cuts/UI thing I referred to above.

Earlier, someone made an accusation that I had made an ad hominem attack.  This is a perfect example of ad hominem, in case that poster is looking for an example.

Take a look at Media Matters For America.  Yeah, tend to be branded a liberal organization, but the fact is that what they comment on is these folks, in their own words - and they do their homework.  They cite their sources, and it's pretty bulletproof.  Look at factcheck.org, or politifact.org, non-partisan organizations that research the claims of everyone across the spectrum.  Look where the more glaring "pants on fire" lies come from.  Sometimes it's innocuous, stupid comments (Rush is particularly famous for these, things like "Obama wants to ban circumcision", or "ban fishing", or whatever), sometimes it's mischaracterizations of entire issues (like net neutrality, and Glenn Beck's rather incomprehensible tirade against a food safety bill which passed the US Senate today with bi-partisan support).

These people are not just doing this stuff because it's fun.  It's because it supports an agenda that is in my opinion very, very bad for most of us.  I can only marvel that the GOP can manage to get blue collar folks, working class people bringing home $30K a year, to demand tax cuts for billionaires, or at least to support such ideas, it boggles the mind.  They can do it because these folks do not actually do research for themselves, do not question what they're told, do not see that it's basically just lies.

Since this time, perhaps?

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, we get it.  The right is "loony, wrong and damaging" to the political process.  Let us all sit around and listen as the Minstrel Class* of society tell us all how to act, vote and more importantly, believe, because apparently dissent ist verboten.  And voting anything but Democrat is a sign of mental weakness, apparently.  I say "damn the opposition" and just go forward with your ideas, Obama.  I mean, what do the voters know?

*Actors, Singers and other entertainment "elite".

 

[Sapplicant]

Can I paraphrase you, Redeye?
I'm going to anyways.


"The right are a bunch of ravenous, retarded Nazi's who accuse left-leaners of being communists trying to destroy America. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously. They're the ones destroying America, and the world."


Of course! How come I never saw this before??

 

[TheHead]

He never said either of those  :

 

[vonGarvin]

Can I paraphrase you, Redeye?
I'm going to anyways.


"The right are a bunch of ravenous, retarded Nazi's who accuse left-leaners of being communists trying to destroy America. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously. They're the ones destroying America, and the world."


Of course! How come I never saw this before??

He never said either of those  :

Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.

Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.

The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.

No, he didn't say it verbatim.  Sapplicant was paraphrasing.  For what it's worth, fascism is more "left" than "right": bigger government, socialist, state control over everything, etc and so forth.

Anyway, it's unfair to label one side as "delusional" and the other as "enlightened", no matter which side you prefer.  Sadly, Redeye described Beck's ideas as delusional.  The other side wasn't portrayed (unless we count Jon Stewart, who was described as hilarious).  "They", "They", "They".

I guess I'm one of the dumb hicks who "buys" some of their ideas, such as the left/fascism "thing".  I'll just retreat to my trailer, turn on Beck (from Fox, not the musical artist) and if that fails, I'll turn on Oprah so I can find out how I'm supposed to vote.