Politician's Purgatory

When an executive makes decisions on the premise that “ it seems like the practical thing to do” you can bet the results will be chaotic and lead to dilemmas that soon become reconcilable only with a strategy of retreat. Let’s begin with a hypothetical situation as follows: A company CEO hears that his major competitor is raising prices. He has three choices. First he can follow suit and raise his prices. Second he can ignore the price rise and continue with the current prices or lastly he can lower prices. Without a scrupulous eye on the bottom line he may decide that by lowering his prices he may capture more market share, thus increasing his overall position in the market using the price differential as an incentive for customers to buy his product. Certainly this could be correct decision if he has calculated correctly. But suppose he simply observes that his advisors tell him to take the most practical approach which may be to simply do nothing until there has been time to evaluate the response to his competitors price hike. This certainly could also be considered a reasonable solution. Finally he may decide that since his competitor is raising prices he should simply follow suit because after all there is no reason to think his product is less valuable than his competitors. Now the question is which of these decisions is the most pragmatic?
The answer is to do nothing. Why? Because it is the most short sighted. The other options require projections and calculations for costs and future revenues. They require a long range view of the consequences of price adjustment. They require thinking about the goals of the company, the costs associated with raising or lowering prices and accurate projections of future results. Of course it may be that keeping prices the same is the best alternative if such a decision is based on the long range thinking and calculations used in the other two alternatives but if it is simply a short-sighted move to avoid determining which is the best option then it is pragmatism .

Now in the world of politics how does pragmatism translate into policies of chaos and retreat? Suppose a President decides to please a portion of his supporters either by an appointment or an executive order. For the sake of explicitness lets use the current appointment of his legal advisor to the Supreme Court. At first glance this is not a well thought out decision. There is no evidence of legal decision making from a court perspective ( advising as was pointed out by John Robert’s is the responsibility of an underling and may not be consonant with personal views). This vacuum is noticed by both sides of the aisle and at best gives uncertainty to all but the most loyal to the President. An appointment on the primary basis of loyalty without a demonstrable level of relevant experience has to be classified as pragmatic. As such it is quick, uncontemplated and controversial. It is as if one said,” Its time to act and so I will decide thus”. If the President asked himself what should be the qualifications of a Supreme Court Nominee and he pointed to the record and qualifications of John Roberts which were substantiated in the Senate committee confirmation hearings that is not pragmatic. The nomination was thought out using rational standards. How can anyone consider the latest appointment to have undergone the same considerations? A person does not have to be a pure pragmatist to make pragmatic ( i.e short sighted ) decisions. But whatever a person’s ideological persuasion a pragmatic decision will lead to the consequences that overlooking the long term results dictates. Looking at the now while ignoring the future of the now decision is pragmatic. Ignoring the theoretical foundation ( i.e. the principles ) while deciding on the immediate is a blind hope that things will work out.
This brings us to the major decision to take a country to war. We did not rush to war in our “war on terror” but the major principle ignored in the face of a population expecting retaliation was what are we going to accomplish, how will we defeat those who need to surrender and who are the major players that must be dealt with? Our President named an axis of evil but has only dealt with one of the named players. He has taken on the task of reform for Iraq and ignored the other two members to the axis. Are we to expect the same drawn out stalemate if and when we invade Iran and North Korea. Under present policy, who knows? It is short sighted ( pragmatic) to say what you know what your audience wants to hear and then not follow up on the principles you have named. If you say your policy will be to punish nations who harbor terrorists then you cannot excuse some terrorist countries while you try to reform others. We fought and won a World War on two fronts against far greater fortified enemies than we face in the “axis of evil” yet we are bogged down in a stalemate conflict and diplomatic bungling even though we are vastly more powerful than when we fought in the forties. What explains this contrast? A Presidential policy of Pragmatism.
Reforming Iraq may sound like a noble cause to some but the fact of the matter is that is not our job. Our military are specialized killers of our enemies. That is what they are trained to do and that is their mission. When we are attacked they rise to the occasion and eliminate the threat. They are not trained to paint the walls of the enemy or to convince them that we are a nice nation and they should emulate us. The Commander in Chief of this magnificent defense organization undercuts it effectiveness when he takes his eye off the ball and thinks making friends out of enemies is more important. If they want to be friends after we have defeated them and they have unconditionally surrendered, that is their choice, but it is not our obligation. It was this short sighted option that has lead us into a war that we are not winning and easily could. It is this short sighted approach to facing our enemies that has Iran and North Korea still rattling sabers instead of realizing they are next on the list. It is not physical strength we lack, it is not the courage to fight, it is not the lack of technology or weaponry. It is a lack of a rational philosophy to formulate foreign policy in the heads of our political leaders. Trying to support an organization containing our avowed enemies is not only short sighted but suicidal. Using our soldiers where nuclear bombs would save American lives and achieve quick decisive victory is archaic, and ineffective. Harry Truman saved American lives when he ordered the nuclear bombing of Japan. What then is the legacy of those who refuse to use nuclear bombs and choose to sacrifice American soldiers? There are now two thousand dead American soldiers that could be alive if we had followed up on our depiction of an axis of evil and attacked them with the rage and effectiveness we have. Only a short sighted fear of how we will be seen has prevented us from a victory that would now have us at peace and those who have notions of conquest quieted. The long range future of the world and the United States requires the long range thinking in principles and their implementation. The principles of a Constitutional limited government include a government and its executive leader to protect this nation first and foremost including the soldiers and the citizens. It does not include reforming nations that choose other paths. This vision has been lost in the the chaos of the moment by thinking it is practical to sacrifice. The results of short sighted thinking has been displayed and will be recorded for history. If now we will only see the disastrous results and demand that short sighted “practical” decisions are no longer acceptable. They must be consonant with the principles and values of life on earth and in our nation. And leave sacrifice to our enemies.

Since the Korean War, the United States has implemented a policy of confrontation of its enemies that has resulted at best in a stalemate. We are still keeping troops on the 38th parallel because of this policy, we retreated from Vietnam because of this policy and we are again stalemated in Iraq because of this no-win policy.
The concept of victory has become a far off vision that is only promised with no depiction of the actual results. We no longer know what victory looks like because we do not actively seek it. It seems it is sufficient to fight a war and not lose. When the wars become stagnant do we call for attack or retreat? The answer is obvious. We did not want to confront the harborers of our enemies so we were willing to settle for a draw or a withdrawal. Where are the voices that will not settle for anything less than total victory? What would victory in the war on terror look like if we were to achieve it?
Victory requires the complete submission of the enemy. It means that we will no longer be fighting because the enemy has been defeated. By defeated I mean the enemy no longer has the desire, the means and the allies to continue their aggression. Just as the Nazis and the Empire of Japan are not conducting insurgent activities so should be the result of our war with the terrorists. But the terrorists are being trained and funded and there are nations that are known to encourage them. But like China and Russia in the war in Korea and Vietnam we are placating the source of the terrorist activity with the excuse that diplomacy and bribery will convince these regimes to stop their support of our destruction.
In any conflict there are three possible outcomes. First there is victory which clearly establishes that aggression will not be tolerated in any manner and retaliation will consist of total annihilation if necessary. This is the reality of war. There is no compassion for the enemy. The enemy is bent on our destruction and the only way to victory is not to convince or cajole but to answer force with superior force. To not seek victory leaves only two alternatives. There is the stalemate where no one wins and the weaker has the opportunity to rebuild and fight again. This in essence is a slow loss. Finally there is the defeat option where the enemy builds even greater strength to completely annihilate us. Remember the rule of the Nazis and the Japanese in the countries they captured. There was no freedom. There was no opportunity. There was only submission and that is exactly the creed of our current enemy.
We talk of the importance of teaching our children and then we expose them to the ridiculous spectacle of creating and sustaining policies that have proven to be flawed. What do they learn from our unwillingness to learn the lessons of history? What chance will they have when we turn them into ground troops to seek out murdering thugs in dilapidated rubble? What do they learn from seeing the power of our weaponry mothballed in the name of a peace that never is achieved?
The false alternative of pulling out of Iraq or continuing to encourage the Iraq population to instill and promote our values is not the answer. Victory for us is the only answer and it consists of implementing as quickly and as effectively as possible a policy of attack. We need to wipe out the insurgents, their sponsors and any other misguided regimes that want to see our defeat. Make no mistake. Any nation that is doing anything that encourages any sort of terrorist activity is our enemy. And this includes any nation that encourages terrorist activity against our allies.
We have seen the corruption and ineffectual activity of the United Nations and since they do not stand with us then we must stand alone ( which we are doing while paying their bills ). There will come a time when Americans will not stand for this prolonged policy of stalemate and insist on victory. Americans know that the wars we won were not based on the flaws of “holding our position”.
If we are faced with an enemy who seeks victory why don’t we? Do we think we can convince them to renounce their ambitions? Do we think they will be satisfied with an equal or inferior position? And when and if we become a target for their superior weaponry how will we justify the loss of our superiority? The sad fatal fact will be that we did not seek victory.