Attack the tactic? Bad strategy, John.

by lestro

I think I just got to the heart of the problem in the George W. Bush Administration, as well as the would-be sequel of the McCampaign.

It is a delicate, but incredible important distinction between strategies and tactics.

Friday in the debate, during a discussion about the 2003 troop surge in Iraq, Barack Obama said:

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes — John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong.

John McCain, following this eloquent and succinct dressing down of his judgment, put on his most condescending face, flicked his tongue a few times and did exactly what the Karl Rove playbook says to do.

He belittled his opponent, plugged the message and changed the subject:

MCCAIN: I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. But the important — I’d like to tell you, two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.

I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here.

And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.

With McCain’s storied military career, his dressing down his younger opponent on the difference between a strategy and a tactic carries some weight.

Unfortunately, as Joe Biden pointed out in the immediate spin (which was not countered by the other veep candidate, by the way. hmmm…), McCain was wrong and Obama was right.

A strategy is a big picture goal while a tactic is what you use to help achieve those. In the case of the surge, the strategy was “Clear, hold and build” – the tactic used to try and accomplish it was a temporary increase in troop levels.

In a broader sense, the strategy was to use the military to tamp down violence and create breathing room for the diplomatic operations to take hold and allow us to get out. The tactic that was used to allow the military to tamp down the violence was “the surge”.

Or, in this case, the strategy was to avoid having to answer to that litany of bad judgments that Obama just handed down. The tactic was to condescend and change the topic.

Again, it’s fine difference, but an important one.

James Fallows at the Atlantic applied the idea to the whole debate:

Everything John McCain did on stage last night was consistent with trying to score tactical points in those 90 minutes. He belittled Obama with the repeated “he doesn’t understand”s; he was explicitly insulting to him in saying at the end “I honestly don’t believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience” for the job (a line Joe Biden dare not use so bluntly on Sarah Palin); and implicitly he was shockingly rude and dismissive in refusing ever to look Obama in the eye. Points scored — in the short term, to the cheers of those already on his side.

But overall, it explains why the whole McCampaign seems to lurch and stilt and jump from place to place and crazy scheme to crazy scheme. They are mistaking tactics for strategy, sacrificing the long term for the quick ratings boost.

Sarah Palin gave a quick boost in the short term, but will fuck him in the long run.

His big “suspending the campaign” hokum seemed like a quick pick-me-up, but will fuck him in the long run.

The Bush Administration has governed in the same way, sacrificing the long term for the short term.

Not only is this economic crisis the result of the exact same selling-out-of-the-future-to-make-a-quick-buck-now philosophy, the Bush Administration’s response – ohshitohshitohshit-quickthrowmoneyatit-fuckitletpaulsonhavetotalcontrol-justdosomething – is the same basic misunderstanding. That’s not an economic strategy, that’s a tactic that can be used as part of an economic strategy (all be it a bad one), which in this case continues to be “The Rich Get Richer.”

Everything they’ve done since the beginning has been the same sell-out-the-future bullshit.

The change we need is someone who understands the difference.

2 Responses to Attack the tactic? Bad strategy, John.

  1. Pingback: Well no wonder they’re throwing shoes « The Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi

  2. Pingback: lie lie lie half-truth distortion distortion lie lie lie… « The Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: