A Case for Steady and Stable

In 1961, when President John F. Kennedy proclaimed, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” it was not clear how we were going to do that. But he chose to act boldly. Consequently, years of hard work and ingenuity by many talented and dedicated people made it happen.

Yet in matters here on earth, especially in the areas of foreign policy and war making, JFK’s actions demonstrated self-restraint and an acute understanding of the limits of American power. The steady hand that he displayed during the Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind. But his approach to the Vietnam War is more salient to the point that I am making.

At the time of President Kennedy’s death in 1963 there were about 15,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. There are historians who suggest that President Kennedy saw the situation for what it was, and therefore had no intentions to escalate American involvement. Meaning exporting our version of Democracy to Vietnam was not a part of his agenda. Based on my reading of history, I tend to agree with that assessment. Obviously, we can never be sure.

JFK, the epitome of a leader showcasing both bold confidence and self-restraint. Image: History.com, Getty Images / PhotoQuest / Contributor

Then a different President, Lyndon B. Johnson, had a different take on the situation. And by the end of the 1960’s, there were over 500,000 American troops in Vietnam. The rest of that history does not require a rehash here.

In 1991 when I returned from the First Gulf War, there were those who argued that President George H. W. Bush should have “gone all the way.” I guess that means we should have continued to Baghdad, toppled Sadam Hussein’s government, and tried to institute some form of Democracy in Iraq.

We saw that course of action played out 12 years later when President George W. Bush attempted to do just that. Yes, Sadam was gone. But after 8 years of fighting, over 4400 American lives lost, and an estimated $1.7 trillion spent, Iraq today is an extremist Islamic State. If only W. had his father’s understanding of the region, and his temperament, to exercise restraint.

A similar situation holds true for what we attempted to do in Afghanistan, another George W. Bush production. In the wake of 9/11, I think we were justified in attacking Afghanistan for harboring Osama Bin Laden. But we should have left it at that and left the Taliban to their own devices. Instead, we attempted to remake that country.

After over 19 years of upheaval in Afghanistan, with over 2400 American lives lost and an estimated $2.2 trillion spent, the Taliban now controls that country.

Regime change and exporting Democracy are certainly lofty ambitions. But it is strategically and operationally problematic. Do we ever learn?

President H.W. Bush, President Barack Obama, and President George W. Bush: three very different temperaments, with different approaches to international action. Image: NBC News, Ron Sachs / EPA file

Which brings us to the current war with Iran, brought to us by President Donald J. Trump. At the outset I will stipulate a few things:

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a bad actor in the region and on the world stage for 47 years. They have been a state sponsor of terrorism for most of that time, via proxies such as Hammas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Clearly, a nuclear weapon in the hands of this unstable, theocratic and repressive regime is not acceptable. Every American President since 1979 has recognized this and addressed this primarily through the application of crippling economic sanctions. All opted for stability rather than succumbing to the temptation of engaging in a hot war with the Iranian regime.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama Administration, was a further attempt to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, by less than kinetic means.. That agreement was far from perfect. But it did provide some guardrails. And it could have been improved over time with further negotiations. Also, it was not only an agreement between the United States and Iran. Other signatories to the agreement were China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and European Union.

I admittedly possess no training in psychoanalysis, but I believe that the name Barack Obama is a trigger for Donald Trump. Trump’s actions seem to reflect the idea that if Obama did it, it must be wrong. How else would you explain Trump’s hasty withdrawal from the JCPOA? How else would you explain this ill-conceived war with Iran?

Prior to this administration’s actions, tanker ships were passing through the Strait of Hormuz essentially unmolested. Other countries in the region were not dealing with missile strikes from Iran. And here at home, the price of a gallon of gas was more reasonable. Stability was the order of the day.

I understand the seduction of taking bold, dramatic action. But in this instance steady and stable would be preferable. The recent passage of the War Powers Resolution in the U.S. House of Representative is an indication of Congress’ growing impatience with the status quo. And if at some point Trump can negotiate a deal with Iran to end this conflict, I suspect it will look a lot like Obama’s JCPOA, whether Trump admits it or not.

"When Donald Trump met President Barack Obama at the White House, their antipathy was barely concealed." - Quote by BBC.com, photo from BBC.com/Reuters

Over my tenure in office, in some circles I acquired the nickname “Steady Steve” as an acknowledgement of how I conducted business. It was certainly not sexy or headline grabbing. Although I like to think that I did possess a certain subtle charm.  My point is that my approach recognized certain factors that greatly limited my reliance on grand pronouncements. Leaders at all levels might consider a similar approach.

Finally, as someone who attempts to play golf, I am a fan of the movie Tin Cup. It stars Kevin Costner as a talented golfer who never made it to the big time, because he always felt compelled to attempt the big play by “going for it,” rather than occasionally exercising some restraint.  

Kevin Costner in Tin Cup. Image: Copyright: Warner Bros/Monarchy Ent.and Regency Eng.USA Supplied by Online USA, Inc.

In explaining his philosophy to his caddy, the Costner character makes the valid point that “greatness courts failure.” To which his caddy astutely responds, “That may be so boss, but sometimes par is good enough to win.”

Agreed.