The Prodigal Wimp

They say that "the fruit don't fall far from the tree." This is a waggish reference to the tendency of children to take after their parents in the latter's emblematic character traits.

Never has that adage seemed less the case than with President George W. Bush, who, in his "unilateralism," foreign policy boldness and vision, and political courage, has been, in just about every meaningful way, the antithesis of his buttoned-down, striped-pants, establishmentarian father. From cutting taxes (Pappy raised them) to blowing off (ultimately) the United Nations (Pappy obsequiously kissed multilateralist ass) to finishing the job in Iraq that Pappy left undone, Dubya did all he could to convey the impression that he was a "New Bush."

Until, it would appear, he secured the second term his dad never did.

Since then, we've gotten abortive Social Security reform (analogous to Bush41's early push to cut the capital gains tax), Harriet Miers for SCOTUS (analogous to David Souter - blessedly this mystery meat didn't go through), and a harrowingly dismaying retrenchment toward bowing the knee to Turtle Bay (this time over Iran). (Federal spending, of course, was out of control under both father and son, and doesn't bear dead-horse-beating here.)

The genetic reconvergence has even extended to flaccidity of rhetoric. An observation first broached by Paul Beston at AmSpecBlog the other day:

A group of Marines, if an ongoing investigation finds that their killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha were actually akin to murder, face the most severe of punishments. As Dave notes below, certain segments of the media are all too eager to reach negative conclusions in the matter.

What does the President have to say about it? Granted, he can’t opine on the innocence or guilt of the Marines, but how about a statement of support for who they are and the conditions they are laboring under in Iraq, which included losing one of their own to one of the ubiquitous roadside bombs in the area they were patrolling? How about publicly stating some equivalent of Rudy Giuliani’s position regarding the NYPD – that they should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise? How about a ringing defense of the Marine Corps, a reminder of what Americans owe them, and a stern rebuke to the media for its transparent eagerness to create another scandal in Iraq, one that will directly impact the safety of the men fighting over there?

Nah. The President says “I am troubled by the initial news stories,” as generic a statement as can be made. He stresses that there will be punishment for those who are guilty. He talks about Marine pride, but only in the context of saying, again, that they will be sure to punish the guilty. There is no message of reassurance for the Marines in harm’s way, but there is plenty for the Arab world and the American media. Pathetic.

Our readers know excruciatingly well my sour view of the Bush Administration's refusal to defend itself in the day-to-day public relations war. How this POTUS refuses to acknowledge that Bill Clinton's "permanent campaign" template changed the rules of governing by making it impossible without an ongoing PR offensive. And how the only two sustained successful stretches of his presidency - 9/11 to the fall of Baghdad and his 2004 re-election - were marked by his prolonged campaigning for important objectives. When he doesn't have a mission to animate him, Bush the Son drifts along inside a bubble of political apathy while his enemies beat the crap out of him in perpetuity and his friends bolt the reservation. It long ago (almost three years for me) passed the point of tiresomeness and now is, from a grassroots perspective, simply infuriating.

But this, yes, wimpiness of rhetoric is a new wrinkle. How can it be that the same man who said he wanted Osama bin laden "dead or alive," who declared in a righteous indignation that the American people echoed in full-throated roar that the rest of the world "must make a choice; you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," is now reduced to humiliatingly meek expressions of "concern" at the defamation of the U.S. Marine Corps?

Diana West brought this dichotomy into uncomfortably sharp focus:

When George W. Bush stood with Tony Blair before the White House press corps last week, he took a mea culpa moment (1) to announce his regret for having formerly talked tough to jihadis, and (2) to call Abu Ghraib "the biggest mistake that's happened so far" in Iraq. And that's when my sinking feeling over the viability of American Superpowerdom hit bottom.

Before further explanation, it's worth noting that this presidential statement created a confessional moment of sufficient magnitude to stifle "I told you so's" from the press. Long pained by Mr. Bush's spaghetti-Western diction, and long party to the Abu Ghraib Outrage Industry, media elites might have been expected to, well, rub it in. Then again, Mr. Bush took care of that himself. He referred to language that once irked his critics - "bring it on," he offered as an example, along with "wanted, dead or alive." I'm guessing he would also include the line, "you're either with us or against us." Mr. Bush then informed the world that, yes, he had grown. Such "kind of tough talk," he said, "sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. ...I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that."

It has been said recently - indeed, predicted long ago - that 9/11 did not, after all, "change everything." That the Islamikaze attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. created a blip on the public attention screen that was almost entirely superficial and would inexorably fade back into the 9/10-ness from which it was roused. I've been of two minds about that, my rational side balking at the notion that such an abject lesson could be so blithely and effortlessly forgotten, my cynical side wondering why it didn't happen a lot quicker.

But having the man whose post-9/11 leadership was described in many credible quarters as "Churchillian" recant of the emblematic everyman eloquence that was the rhetorical pillar of that leadership vindicates my cynical side with a vengeance. It's official: the Global War On Terror is over. Finished. Done. Kaput. Pffft.

To call this "deeply depressing" doesn't begin to describe it. "[Bleep]ing terrifying" is more like it once you consider the implications:

In disavowing his so-called tough talk, Mr. Bush has dropped clues to a tactical shift. Once dedicated to a black-and-white fight for strategic victory in Iraq and elsewhere, Mr. Bush now seems more committed to an amorphous battle for the hearts and minds throughout Islam. Why else recant cowboy calls for capturing the utterly despicable Osama bin Ladena figure who remains popular in the Islamic world? And why else identify Abu Ghraib as the Iraq war's single worst mistake?

....Dissected from context and magnified beyond proportion in the kangaroo court of world opinion, Abu Ghraib was a public relations disaster. For Mr. Bush to call it Mistake Numero Uno after recanting his own colloquial war rhetoric is unwise, weak and, therefore, quite dangerous.

And it is here that American Superpowerdom becomes a risky enterprise. Fueling this policy shift is a profound misunderstanding of both Islam and its animating institution of jihad. Renouncing the tough talk and wallowing in Abu Ghraib become a tacit acceptance of some blame for the jihad terrorism now spilling blood around the globe. It also signals a flagging will to project power. [emphasis added]

The logic of Ms. West's devastating analysis is merciless: The Bushies have finally been cowed by the domestic political opposition and have transferred their seditious talking points to represent Muslim grievances. And the President is attempting to appease those grievances, no longer realizing (if, indeed, he ever did) that neither the domestic political opposition nor the jihadist enemy can be appeased. The former is obsessed with his political death and that of his party, and the latter want all of us physically dead, and - to revive a Terminator tag-line I applied to this topic fifteen years ago - "absolutely will not stop - EVER" - until they accomplish it.

If the idea now is to "win the hearts & minds" of the Muslim populations of the Middle East, the worst thing George W. Bush could possibly do is show weakness - in ANY context. What progress we have made there has been the product of military force and, yes, "cowboy" rhetoric. And even a rudimentary grasp of Arab culture will yield the understanding that what Muslims respect above all else is strength.

The conclusion to be drawn is unequivocal: Bush is no longer strong. He has been brought low by his domestic enemies. He is now weak. A wimp, just like his pop. And our enemies, from bin Laden to Zarqawi to Ahmadinejad to Kim jong-Il to our "good friends" in Beijing, will gleefully and droolingly rub their hands accordingly in anticipation of another pell-mell, Vietnam-like retreat that will only differ in that this time, they will be right behind us with mayhem aforethought.

It's like if General Eisenhower had decided to postpone D-Day, and then FDR got cold feet, and called off Operation Overlord altogether. Only thing left to do would have been to start withdrawing American troops and bringing them home.

If only history would repeat itself now.