WASHINGTON, 8 May 2004 — The cascade of troubling developments in Iraq has posed an extraordinary test of President Bush’s leadership, forcing him to do several things that do not come easily to him.
While the hallmarks of his administration have been loyalty, discipline and doggedness, Bush in recent days has openly criticized a top lieutenant, has changed course on troop levels and funding in Iraq and has been subjected to a new spate of dissent from fellow Republicans in Congress.
Bush’s rebuke of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his handling of the Iraqi prison scandal, delivered in private but deliberately made public by top White House aides, is a rare departure for a president who has labored to keep divisions within his administration behind closed doors.
His decision this week to seek more money for Iraq, considered overdue by some members of Congress, was seen by lawmakers as an admission that costs are growing more rapidly than had been expected.
And the controversy over the administration’s handling of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, including the Pentagon’s apparent delay in notifying Congress, has so infuriated lawmakers that more Republicans are second-guessing an administration that is seen as having little appetite for public dissent from its usual allies.
Bush’s leadership style — both in domestic and foreign policy — has produced a remarkably disciplined and focused White House for most of his tenure in office.
But now, some critics argue that his administration’s tightly held process of setting and sticking by policy — a process described by administration insiders in several recent books — has contributed to some of the problems it faces in postwar Iraq. Critics say administration planners gave short shrift to signs that stabilizing postwar Iraq would require more time, money and manpower than they expected.
“It is not a deliberative or particularly rational process, and it’s seldom open to new information,’’ said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. “That was responsible for the lack of planning for what was to follow the war.’’
“There is a general sense out there that the administration does not tolerate any points of view that are contrary to theirs,’’ said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has argued that the United States should seek more international support for the Iraq mission. “Good, sharp critical thinking is absolutely imperative to good policy.’’
A senior administration official disputed the contention that the White House was rigid and closed to dissenting views or new information, citing the many course corrections the administration has made in its postwar efforts.
“I think actions speak louder than words: How the administration has pursued Iraq’s reconstruction and the transfer of sovereignty is by having a plan but having a flexible plan that does adapt to changing conditions on the ground,’’ the official said.
Recent weeks have posed a steady stream of challenges to Bush that have tested his ability to keep his Iraq policy on course. The release of photographs of Iraqi prisoners being abused created a firestorm that he and his top lieutenants were ill-prepared to douse. It came on the heels of weeks of continuing instability and outbursts of anti-Americanism in parts of Iraq. The US military has struggled for a strategy to handle Fallujah, a hotbed of the insurgency. In April, 136 American troops died in Iraq — the deadliest month yet in the conflict.
Recent polls have suggested that these troubles are affecting the public’s assessment of Bush’s handling of the conflict in Iraq. A new Gallup survey — conducted as reports of Iraqi prisoner abuse were emerging — found that 42 percent of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, down from 48 percent in April and 61 percent in January.
No one knows for sure how this will affect Bush’s re-election prospects. But the spate of events that seem to be swirling beyond his control undercuts one of Bush’s strongest political assets: His persona as a strong leader. “It would be better for him if it appeared more that he was ahead of events rather than reacting,’’ said Charles O. Jones, a professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin. “His great strength has been a positive image of his capacity to lead, of seeming to be in charge, not letting others determine what he’s going to do.’’
