Board-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht- Economist: Ein Chaot, der Kriege führt als Wahlkampfstrategie! - Wal Buchenberg, 15.06.2002, 21:08
Economist: Ein Chaot, der Kriege führt als Wahlkampfstrategie!
Ein Chaot, der Kriege führt als Wahlkampfstrategie (Aus: Economist)
“Remember the CEO presidency? Remember all the talk about how America‘s first president with an MBA would set broad “strategic“ goals while his loyal and leak-free “board“ of seasoned businesspeople would decide how to implement them? And remember all the sneering comparisons with the chaotically unprofessional Clinton administration?
Well, the chaos is back. An administration that was supposed to run as smoothly as clockwork has recently been clattering from crisis to crisis, with the FBI and CIA waging a war of leaks against each other in the press, with officials issuing endless warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, and amid a general sense that things are drifting out of control.
George Bush was frequently tired and grouchy on his recent trip to Europe, hardly the best way to reassure nervous allies. Then Andrew Card, Mr. Bush‘s chief of staff, added to the sense of gloom in the White House over the impending departure of Karen Hughes, the president‘s communications director, with a foolishly frank interview in Esquire magazine. One of the keys to the administration‘s success so far, he argued, has been the balance between the ideological Karl Rove, senior adviser to the president, and the more pragmatic Ms Hughes. Her departure could, he implied, tilt the White House in a dangerously rightwing direction.
The obvious reason for such gaffes is exhaustion. Visitors to Washington are often impressed by the size of the president‘s entourage. But Mr. Bush‘s inner circle—the people he trusts to offer advice and take important decisions—is no bigger than a dozen. Over the past couple of months the inner circle has had to deal with a relentless barrage of international problems, involving some of the world‘s most intractable conflicts (Israel v Palestine; Pakistan v India; al-Qaeda v civilization) as well as its most dangerous weapons. No wonder there is an air of exhaustion hanging around the White House.
This air of exhaustion hangs particularly heavily around the president. Mr. Bush has never been noted for his appetite for hard work. He likes to take long breaks for exercise during the day and in tuck himself in bed by 10 pm. He also likes to focus on a couple of big issues of his own choosing rather than dealing with mess and confusion. Add to this the fact that he did not exactly come to office overburdened with knowledge of foreign affairs and you can see why he sometimes looks a little grouch But there is more to the administration‘s problems than this.
There is a failure to plan ahead. Mr. Bush‘s decision to create a new Department of Homeland Security was driven by politic expediency rather than strategic planning. He resisted the idea of creating a separate department for nine months. A month ago his staff were lobbying Republican senators to vote against the idea. He changed his mind out of desperation—because the rev elation that the FBI and CIA had ignored evidence that might have prevented September 11 th was undermining the country‘ confidence in its institutions. A CEO president would have got work redesigning the Washington bureaucracy months ago~ Bush is allowing one of the most important government changes in 50 years to be shaped by scandal and spin.
Next, consider an area that should be dose to the heart oft Harvard Business School graduate: corporate reform. So far the administration‘s proposals for curing Enronitis have been lam. The White House is sitting on its hands while special-interest lobbyists are busy neutering legislation on Capitol Hill. Such paralysis is bad for the economy. In the past fortnight the heads o both Goldman Sachs and IBM have given warning that doubts about corporate honesty are depressing the stockmarket. It is also bad for the administration. Mr. Bush had a chance to show that he is tough enough to force his fellow CEOS to put their houses in order. Now it looks as if he is more interested in avoiding hard questions about Dick Cheney‘s spell as head of Halliburton or his own ties to dubious energy chiefs.
All roads lead to Baghdad
To Mr. Bush‘s harshest critics, this failure to plan ahead is part o an increasingly dangerous penchant for short-termism. His rapid surrenders on free trade are clearly part of that pattern. Hawks are now also worried about Iraq. In the months following his “axis of evil“ speech Mr. Bush gave the impression that was planning to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. And he seemingly reaffirmed that strategy in a speech at West Point, arguing that American foreign policy is now based on a doctrine of pre-emptive intervention against its ghastliest enemies. But military strategists are whispering that Mr. Bush is having second thoughts as he learns more about the sheer scale of the operation—that it could take a quarter of a million troops to remove Saddam, that there could be bloody street-by-street fighting, that installing a new regime could be the work of years.
The good news for Mr. Bush is that he is adapting surprisingly well to the Clintonian world of crisis-management. His volte face on homeland security may have been disingenuous, but it seems to have worked. That and the news of the capture of the dirty bomber, which Mr. Bush‘s people have shamelessly milked, has distracted attention from the debate about the failings of the intelligence services (where, again, there seems to b no administration strategy to reorganise the system).
But such seat-of-the-pants policy-making is fraught with problems. For the moment Mr. Bush is in danger of remaining on the defensive, dealing with events rather than dominating the In its own grisly way, another terrorist attack could alter that perception. Barring that, the hawks may be right: the future of the Bush presidency depends increasingly on Iraq. If Mr. Bush follows through on his promise to topple Saddam Hussein, he will regain control of politics. If he backs down, Clintonian crisis-management may be the order of the day until 2004.”
Ungekürzt aus: Economist, 15.6.2002
<center>
<HR>
</center>
Thread gesperrtgesamter Thread:
