Oct. 21, 2006
 
Editorial: Bush’s Last Stand
 
General George Armstrong Custer had a military career that few have rivalled. He was given leadership opportunities early in the Civil War, then proved himself time and time again in opening up the West in several fights with Native American forces.
 
General Custer was dubbed the "Golden Boy" and not only because of his flowing blond locks. He was the face of a young America bent on accomplishing its Manifest Destiny, securing a country that went from coast to coast.
 
But, like so many others in history, Custer started to believe in his invincibility. Like Napoleon going into Russia, or Robert E. Lee marching his Army of Northern Virginia across the fields of Gettysburg, Custer believed a bit too much in his own star. After so many victories, one can begin to see how any of these great military strategists might begin to feel invincible.
 
After conquering his alcoholism, George W. Bush has had an impressive string of political victories. While he may have had a serious head start in life, being raised by a powerful Republican family, he could lay claim to not only great election victories as the twice-elected Governor of Texas. He could point to charming the Texas legislature and leaving behind a record of great achievements.
 
These were the achievements that helped propel him into even higher office at the national level. People wanted to see if Bush's finesse or luck could be replicated nationally.
 
At first, the old magic held. President Bush had a quite respectable first year in office, passing tax relief and education reform that many believed could never pass. But he and his chief adviser, Karl Rove, did it.
 
Then came what many have called his defining moment, rallying New Yorkers with a bullhorn after the 9/11 strikes. He certainly seemed the man of the moment: in charge when America needed a Churchill to guide us through the smoke of war.
 
However, we may be seeing the limits of Roveian image-building. Because what makes good theater for the digestion of the masses cannot substitute for wise judgment--and knowing which voices to heed when lives are at stake.
 
The diversion into Iraq was more than just a political error. It was a serious miscalculation at a time when America really needed an inspired battle plan. The Battle of Inchon, Sept. 15-28, 1950, which restored South Korea to freedom, was not just a great play out of General MacArthur's playbook. It solved the problem. That is the source of its genius.
 
The Iraq diversion of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush has been extraordinarily costly and ineffective at a time when we needed our best minds working on a global war on terror. While we were deciding how best to secure Baghdad last week, terror cells were sprouting up elsewhere throughout the Middle East. What about them? Don't they count?
 
While the United States still has the most powerful military in the world, it can't have too many distractions at the same time. The Iraq distraction has been like a bad wound that all the body's blood and anti-bodies rush to in order to help neutralize the damage.
 
But there are other wounds to tend to, other potential wounds to address, and the more we get bogged down in a country the size of Iraq and ignore the rest of the world's terror cells, the less safe are we and the free world.
 
President Bush says that he is not changing his approach to Iraq. The nation may have to change it for him on November 7th.