Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002 | 8:55 a.m.
IN THE POLITICAL world, the art of clarifying one's remarks is just that, an art. And it ain't pretty.
In the world of national and international security, clarifying one's remarks is based more on science. The science of real world actions and the science of warfare. It is sometimes not very pretty either.
I don't know whether what I heard the other night in Washington qualifies as art or science, but I do know that what I heard was at the very least disconcerting and, at the most, downright scary. And I have a roomful of witnesses who probably feel the same way.
One of the great joys of being a member of the Board of Trustees of the prestigious Brookings Institution think tank is the quality of the people who inhabit that world and the brilliance of the scholars who work there. Each meeting is an eye-opener and each meeting provides an opportunity to learn about a world so few of us really understand. I know, as much as I thought I knew about the inner workings of government, politics and international relations, the reality is that I knew very little. It has been through the education I have received at Brookings that my world has been opened and enlightened beyond measure.
That, of course, is the role Brookings and other think tanks play in our country and abroad. They think. About the present, the future and the myriad ways we can get from one to the other in the least offensive, least expensive and most advantageous way possible. They inform our congressional leaders, our presidents and those in society whose job it is to chart the course of our lives. And, amongst the handful of top think tanks that speak loudly and often at all levels of government, Brookings is the leader.
I mention all of this to create the backdrop for the dinner speaker at our meeting last week in Washington. Unlike most speakers whose presence is desired by the audience usually more than the desire of the speaker to be there, Brookings is one of the few places today's involved people want to be seen and heard. And so it was that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, came to speak at the beautiful Museum of Women in the Arts last Monday night.
I didn't know much about Gen. Myers except that he seems to be providing our president with good advice because, by most accounts, we are winning our war against terrorism. Also, the upcoming war-making plans in Iraq have not raised any red flags between us and a successful effort in Saddam's front yard. Knowing that he would speak to us, I did some homework.
Gen. Myers is generally believed to be a man of significant intellect, great integrity and a no nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is personality, each of which traits should make for a very successful and valuable chief. I was told that he tells the truth, which could work to his disadvantage in the current circumstances in which "the less said the better" is the watchword of the administration.
Gen. Myers talked at length about the changes in the military's mission in the 21st century and the need to upgrade not only our weapons capability but also our technical operations, manpower deployment tactics and strategies as we move from a world in which we knew our most potent enemy to one in which there could be multiple threats from moving targets, very few of which dealt in the open and according to 20th century war-making rules of engagement. In short, we are undergoing a massive remake of our strategies, our tactics and ourselves.
It was during the discussion on how we were improving our capabilities that Gen. Myers mentioned a meeting with a large computer software maker whose efforts were being considered to create software that would allow us to think faster than al-Qaida. You heard it right, the same way we did. I was not alone in my desire to get to the end of his speech so I could ask him what he meant. Surely he couldn't have said what I thought he said. My hand was not the first to go up and the other questioner homed in on that very short sentence spoken among a host of other, seemingly more significant ones.
The general explained his comments and reiterated that the United States controlled about three-fourths of Afghanistan but that al-Qaida -- and, presumably -- Osama bin Laden -- were holding us at bay in that last 25 percent of Afghan soil. The reason, he said, was that al-Qaida and the Taliban had been able to adapt their techniques to our war-making abilities and were now outthinking our people.
What?
How could this be? I can understand how President Bill Clinton could have missed getting Osama a few years ago when we lobbed a few cruise missiles his way and missed him by just a few minutes. But, in the past year, President George W. Bush has thrown the entire weight and considerable capabilities of the armed forces of the United States of America at the man and all we can say is that he's thinking faster than we are! That we need a computer program to enable us to think faster than a man who lives in a cave and the efficiency of whose network has been dramatically diminished?
Excuse me if I appear bewildered for just a moment -- a state many of the dinner goers entered following those remarks, I might add. If the best we've got isn't good enough to get Osama, what can we possibly be thinking about when we move full speed ahead toward Saddam Hussein? Given the general's concerns, the only thing I can think of is that Saddam is much easier to defeat and so, if we want a success this year, he's the go-to guy.
Well, the inevitable happened. It only took a day or two for Gen. Myers to clarify his position and redefine his words on television consistent with the company position. He said he meant to say that fighting terrorism is not easy and that it will take a long time to win our current war. There, that fits much better into President Bush's plans to keep our country focused on his war-making abilities. Forget the fact that we may be provoking others to action because they believe we can't think fast enough to combat terrorists; it is enough that they might even consider the prospect!
I don't blame Gen. Myers for trying to separate himself from his truthful and heartfelt remarks because that's the kind of candor that can get you in trouble with your boss at the Pentagon. And his boss, too. But, just for a moment shouldn't we consider the possibility that he didn't misspeak? That we are stumped over there and that Osama could be winning this war on terrorism?
I don't know about the rest of my countrymen, but I would rather hear the truth and act on those facts than to be fed a pabulum of clarifying remarks that obfuscate the reality of fighting this very different war.
If the truth shall set us free, what will happen when we are told just the opposite?
archive
