There are many who like to extol the “leadership” shown by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of unprecedented terrorist attacks in 2001.

While not attempting to minimize the effects of the statements and gestures made by President Bush (along with other political leaders, statements and gestures often forgotten in the partisan fray), there is something that must be said:

On September 12, 2001, the task of “leadership” was easy.

When a population is in shock, seeking for reassurance that the world has not ended, that all is not lost, it is easy to be a “leader”, it is easy to ignore personal feelings and say, “Everything will be OK, there is someone in charge who will see things through.”

Ask any parent.

History is replete with examples of those who seized the reigns of leadership in situations where society was begging to be led because of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that caused the entire populace to react as an child would respond, seeking out a single figure, a parent, for reassurance.

It is the choices that those who sought to lead in those circumstances that have created the dichotomy in history that swings between “great men” and “inexorable forces”.

The inexorable forces lead to the circumstances at critical points where the great men can guide the forces at work, not with complete control, but the truly great could foresee the consequences and make allowances for the uncontrollable.

The great men who recognized and grabbed the opportunity but did not have this foresight failed, either in the shorter-term or ultimately a legacy which was one of destruction rather than creation.

Need a list?

Failures:

Hitler

Lenin

Napoleon (with some successes, such as his code of laws that still hold sway in France and other nations in Europe)

Bismark (ultimately, through the Hitleresque culmination of the culture he helped create)

Successes:

Churchill (during World War II, his rejection by the population of Great Britan afterwards was a true recognition of his limitations as a leader)

Truman (who did more than anyone, including Reagan, to both define and to win the Cold War)

Alexander (who despite an early death created a cultural legacy that lasted for thousands of years)

Elizabeth I

If you want a longer list for either category, do your own damn research.

What are we confronted with now?

A President who can perform the easy task of taking leadership when everyone is seeking it, an administration that in the planning for the war in Iraq was apparently (to give them the benefit of the doubt) the victim of a case of “groupthink” that was even bigger than that afflicting the Kennedy administration which resulted in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, a “leader” who cannot admit to mistakes nor fire those who have managed the war in Iraq with a level of incompetence that would be laughable if it had not resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths.

I will not debate here the ultimate rationale behind the War in Iraq which was started by choice in 2003, that is a matter for an entirely separate discussion.

In the area of leadership, especially when times get tough, however, it is becoming obvious that the current administration is falling short, even in the eyes of those who cheerlead the war.

It is easy to “stay the course” when the course is obvious, when the mistakes were unavoidable, when the future was completely unknowable.

When the course is uncertain, when the mistakes were warned against, when the future was indeed predicted by those whose temerity in opposing the groupthink was punished, it becomes obvious where the “leadership” ended and the spin began.

It is indeed debatable whether the war in Iraq starting in 2003 was “optional” or not.

Even if the war was NOT optional, however, it has been conducted since the “catastrophic success” in a way that is criminally incompetent.

You plan for the worst and hope for the best.

You do not plan for the best and stop worrying.

Yet, in this administration that follows the paths of the autocrats of history, rewarding loyalty while punishing competence that goes against the thinking and desires of the dear leader, the statements preceding the war in Iraq of 2003 were not even those of planning for the best, but of expecting the best, with no thoughts whatsoever that anything other than the rosy scenario could conceivably be possible.

The cheerleaders for the war see no issue.

The apologists state that the war was necessary, but offer no explanation for the incompetence or lack of accountability for the incompetence displayed, instead trying to divert attention to the need for the war itself and ignoring the the potential negative consequences of the aftermath.

The opponents of the war offer nothing but opposition and calls for complete withdrawal, an action that would leave the situation even worse than it is now.

The administration offers nothing more than continual shifting of both rationales for the war and goalposts for labelling the effort a success, including the latest, despicable reason - “stay the course to honor those who have already sacrificed.”

If their sacrifice was worth it in the first place, then there is no need to call on it to justify more sacrifice.

This is not leadership, it is avoidance of responsibility.

A definition attributed to Einstein reads, “Insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting a different result.”

Endless repetition of the same talking points both insults the American people along with giving an impression that the administration is incapable of reacting to new situations with anything other than the same responses that yield poor results.

For a look at true leadership in the face of adversity, recall President Harry S. Truman, engaged in a war in Korea where the ultimate rationale was called into question because it was far away and had no apparent relation to the freedom of the citizens of America.

Even the most popular general from the Second World War, Douglas MacArthur, set himself up in opposition to President Truman.

Yet, in the end, President Truman, the haberdasher from Missouri, a self-made man, showed himself to be a true leader.

President George W. Bush, the son of a prior President, a man who as far as I have been able to determine has never held a job independent of his connections or his parentage, has yet to show anything approaching that same level of leadership in adversity.

The old saw says only history can truly judge.

Sometimes, however, it is obvious when events are still news and not yet history who the leaders are, and who are the failures.

Technorati Tags: left wing, left wing politics, left-wing, left-wing politics, politics, right wing politics, right wing, right-wing, right-wing politics