A Meandering Rant on Judgment

One perspective on the war in Vietnam is that LBJ understood it as a consequence of Jack Kennedy’s relative immaturity of judgment, and that once inheriting it, he felt pressured to escalate lest the hawkish Bobby Kennedy make his life miserable prior to the ’68 election. Ironic, isn’t it? Bobby is now thought of as some sort of suit-and-tie flower-child cut off at the roots, and LBJ never ran for re-election in ’68 after all.

What is this judgment thing? Some claim Obama lacks it and hasn’t the experience or maturity to develop it in time for an ’09 presidency. I don’t think anyone seriously claims the same about McCain. Yet what is it, really? Is it really worth anything? Bush clearly lacked it in spades and that certainly sent history’s march in an unexpected direction. Same for Carter, whose inaction regarding Iran in the seventies undoubtedly informed the neocons’ over-reactions in the nineties and aughts. But while Reagan is thought of kindly by history, in his day he was thought by many to be one of the dumbest of all. And suppose his gamble hadn’t paid off? Suppose the Soviets’ adventure in Afghanistan (never mind Carter’s role in encouraging it) hadn’t made such cracks in their structure, and instead of folding into self-destructive introspection had instead responded to Western pressure by sending the tanks rolling across the Elbe? Then Reagan wouldn’t look so smart, would he?

And Lincoln. Did he have good judgment? It violates the American religion to suggest not, but only because he won. His decision to prosecute the war against secession would have been his undoing if not for a few well-timed Union victories in the summer of ’64. The Emancipation Proclamation was no great feat of judgment: Everyone knew, with the growth of the “Black” Republican party and the intensifying rivalry between southern and northern states to, among other things, first establish a railroad link to California, that at some point there would be an Emancipator President. The only question was who. Upon Lincoln’s 1860 election, southerners were pretty certain he was it and finally made good on their many threats to secede. Lincoln himself had no such intention. He only became the Great Emancipator in a political gamble to capitalize on the victory at Antietam and isolate the C.S.A from European support. In the end, Lincoln’s greatness as a president was founded mainly on the blood shed under orders from Grant and Sherman. But for battlefield results, all his other great qualities went for naught.

Claims and counter-claims of sound judgment are way over-rated. And yet, regardless, this upcoming presidential term will require a leader of sound judgment. The “war” in Iraq is a done deal, of course. It’s been over for awhile now (don’t tell the press). Obama wouldn’t pull troops to some timeline, even if it were possible. People who actually believe a President Obama will reduce the incidence and intensity of warfare make me giggle. This is why:

1. Musharraf has resigned from leadership in Pakistan. There will be a period of governmental weakness as the remaining players jockey for position. A grass-roots organization of intensely religious Islamicists will end up sufficiently powerful to wield either direct control or at least a huge influence.

2. Iran will go nuclear with both the indirect assistance of those Europeans who sign large technical trade agreements with them (e.g. France, Germany) and of those who distract world powers with other "small" regional conflicts (e.g. a resurgent and increasingly old-style Russia).

3. Russia will continue to calculate which energy-rich nation is the real winner when Gulf instability –- driven by a fresh Iran / Pakistan nuclear rivalry and increased state-sponsored terrorism, especially against Israel and perhaps Saudi Arabia -– drives global energy prices through the roof, and will act accordingly.

4. The U.N. will continue to grow in irrelevance as China and Russia veto any measures against Iran (not to mention Sudan) that actually have teeth.

And so on. A “peace” president will discover there is no such thing. And since nothing encourages war quite so much as a position for peace, and since Obama is a smart man who has shown a certain amount of flexibility -- who spoke early in the campaign about taking the Afghan war into Pakistan -- there’s no doubt in my mind he will discover that his legacy will depend at least in part on preserving Bush’s. Thus my giggles. They’re not happy ones.

Judgment, then. Everyone has some. Whether or not a given candidate has enough can never be known ahead of time, nor sometimes even after the fact. The only certainty is that if a president doesn’t take steps to maintain the country’s strategic strength in an ever-changing global environment, his judgment will be proven lacking and the people who put him in office will deeply regret it. I hope all claims of either Obama's or McCain's poor judgment are proven wrong.