Leadership Style

Why was there such a catastrophic failure in the intelligence system that led the United States to wage war on the basis of information that was "dead wrong?" There are probably many explanations, all of which are part of the problem. I think one of the problems is the president's leadership style. Jonathan Alter writes

When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions, more than took place in the rest of the country combined. In at least a few of these cases, reasonable doubts about the guilt of the condemned were raised. But Bush cut his personal review time for each case from a half hour to a mere 15 minutes (most other governors spend many hours reviewing each capital case to assure themselves that there's no doubt of guilt). His explanation was that he trusted the courts to sort through the life-and-death complexities. That's right: the courts.

This provides an insight into the president's views of his responsibilities. He views his job as being an administrator, a view no doubt derived from his experience in business. He expects subordinates and associates to do their jobs and acts on what they give him. In the case of capital punishment in Texas, he expected the courts to do their job in determining guilt or innocence, and simply accepted their verdict. In the case of pre-war Iraq intelligence, he expected the intelligence apparatus to do its job, and accepted what they gave him.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong in expecting people to do their jobs. But in the end, the president is responsible for everything that happens in the administration. Consequently, the president is responsible for making sure his people do do their job. Deferring to George Tenet or the Texas courts effectively shifts responsibility to them and away from Bush. This is why, unlike Tony Blair, the president has never said, "I accept full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore for any errors made."

If the president does not view himself responsible, then who is? This fundamental attitude of avoiding responsibility has been manifested many times, the most obvious being the torture in Abu Ghraib for which no one was apparently responsible. Or in effectively making Tenet the scapegoat for intelligence failures.

In an environment in which no one is responsible or accountable, there will be a breakdown of the system. That's what we see in the intelligence fiasco. No one was responsible for what came out, no one was responsible for the interpretations made, and the decisions made based on them. A president who took his responsibility seriously, and we are talking about a decision to wage war here, would have demanded to be personally convinced which would have allowed dissenting views to be expressed, exposing the gaping holes in CIA's story. But that's just not the president's leadership style.