EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR CHILDREN – WHAT DOES IT ENTAIL?

“No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible, until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought.”

                                                                                                            John Stuart Mill

It was in reading this famous observation that, I came to realize that we do not have a cohesive, fit-for-the-times framework to address two critical questions:

What does “equal opportunity” for children entail?

What portion of that should be underwritten and provided by the state and what part left to private or individual means?

I have chosen to address these two questions within the historic commitment our nation made in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government.”

What exactly do these “unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” entail?  And when we say that it is to “secure these Rights that governments are instituted among Men,” what exactly is the government’s obligation?  To do what, for whom?

These are profound questions which have been debated, legislated, adjudicated and written about since the very founding of our nation.  These questions have been answered differently at different points in history.  Most glaringly, the Right to Liberty was denied for almost a century to enslaved men and women following the Declaration of Independence.  The Right to vote was denied for many women until 1920. 

It is not my intent to address the history of the on-going debate over individual Rights. 

I will try, however, to address a narrower but, especially today, vital aspect of this question of what are the “unalienable Rights” that should be “secured” by the government. 

Specifically, I will address this question:  What do we mean when we commit to provide “equality of opportunity” for children as they grow up;  what Rights does that entail and what portion of securing those Rights should be underwritten and provided by the government? 

At the outset, we must acknowledge an overarching reality:  More than any other factor, a child’s development depends more on how his or her parents foster their child’s development, including what is enabled by their economic circumstances and educational background.  Obviously, these conditions cannot in any meaningful sense be made equal and it would be (and has proven to be) folly to try.  It is in the context of this reality that we must strive to answer the question of what we can and must do to provide children with the opportunity so that--as we say in the Declaration of Independence--they are able to “pursue their unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

I submit that the Rights to which children are entitled include an environment that is safe, good health and a good education.  These, I believe, are basic Rights which must be secured by the government. 

In this paper, I will focus exclusively on education—specifically early childhood education.

My major contention:  Quality Pre-Kindergarten Education is A “Right” For All Children.

I believe that we have now reached a sufficient level of knowledge and evidence to conclude that making quality pre-K education available for all children, regardless of their family’s economic means, is a basic Right in the same way that providing quality K-12 education for all children is acknowledged as a “Right” in our Nation.  As such, quality pre-K education calls for public funding just as K-12 education does.  We have learned that quality pre-K is an essential, even more important, part of the education continuum.  We should no more fail to fund it than fail to fund Kindergarten or the 1^st or 2^nd grades.

To repeat, I believe the evidence now available clearly indicates that providing a quality pre-Kindergarten experience should be taken as an obligation of the state just as is providing K-12 education.  While funding streams will be shared by the federal, state and local governments, the overwhelming majority of the funding will properly come from the state and local levels, just as it is with K-12 education. 

There are four reasons why I contend that public funding for high quality pre-K must not be seen as a “nice to do” benefit—a benefit to be implemented when we can afford it.  Rather, it must be seen as a fundamental Right, just like K-12 education.  Here is why:

1.     It is morally correct:  it is a fundamental necessity if all children are to have as approximate an equal opportunity to develop as can be provided recognizing the overarching role of the family.

2.     It is socially correct:  there is no other way that our nation’s young adult men and women, as a whole, will be able to prosper in the competitive world of the future.

3.     It is financially correct:  evidence shows that the investment required to provide this development and educational experience will pay for itself many-fold in lower costs (i.e., less remediation, fewer repeat grades, lower criminal activity and incarceration) and from higher incomes and the taxes derived therefrom.  As an intervention, it has been proven that quality pre-K provides a far higher return on investment than any other intervention in the education continuum. 

4.     It is the only credible response to competitive pressure from the many other countries which are already providing quality pre-K education to a far higher percentage of their three and four-year-olds than our Nation is today.

I recognize that calling for public funding support for pre-Kindergarten education for all children as a Right in the same way we do for K-12 education is a bold contention.  It demands a very high level of support.  Here is that support.

There is compelling evidence that quality pre-K education has a significant impact on a child’s development which lasts throughout his or her years of education and life.  We have evidence for this today that we did not have 10 years ago.  In brief, here is what we know.

1.     Quality pre-K and Kindergarten education dramatically improves Kindergarten readiness as measured on well-qualified tests among students of all incomes.

KRA-L Scores*

By Income and Duration of Preschool Experience

                                                No Center-                  Center Based                           Center Based

                                                Based Program            Program-1 Yr. or less              Program-1+Yr.

            Low Income**                        15.8                             18.5                                         19.6

            Other Income                          19.8                             22.4                                         23.7

            As you’ll see, on average a center-based program of more than one year lifts

            children from low-income families to “ready for Kindergarten” levels.

2.     In turn, being ready for Kindergarten dramatically impacts third grade reading proficiency.  Specifically, research conducted in Southwestern Ohio shows that 85% of those children testing ready for Kindergarten were reading on-grade by the end of the third grade whereas only 43% of those children not ready for Kindergarten were reading on-grade.

3.     This doubling of the percentage of children reading proficiently is enormously significant because third grade reading proficiency correlates dramatically with graduation rates.  A child not reading proficiently at the end of the third grade is four times more likely to drop out than one who is.  And if they are from a poor family, they are 11 times more likely to drop out before completing high school.

*This measure is used to assess Kindergarten readiness as children enter Kindergarten in the State of Ohio.  A score of 19 or better is considered “ready for kindergarten.”

**Low income in this study is defined as 185% of the Federal Poverty line and below or qualifying for free and reduced lunch.

4.     Finally, high school graduation*** and educational attainment beyond high school have an enormous impact on earnings, employment and a person’s health and success throughout life.  Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the following as of 2013: 

Median Weekly Earnings and Unemployment Rates

Ages 25+ by Educational Attainment

                                                                        Average

                                                                        Weekly

Earnings          Unemployment Rate (%)

            Less than H.S. diploma                       $  472                         11.0

            H.S. Diploma                                      $  651                         7.5

            Associate Degree                                $  777                         5.4

            Bachelor’s Degree                               $1,108                        4.0     

            Master’s Degree                                 $1,329                        3.4

What we have learned is very simple and very important.  Quality pre-K education for a child influences all that follows—cognitively, socially and emotionally.  It significantly increases the likelihood of high school completion and, beyond that, entry into higher education with the better paying jobs which such education offers.

I want to especially emphasize how important starting early is for children born into families with lower income.  Consider this sobering fact:  For children born around 1980, college completion among students in the lowest income quartile was only 9%.  That compares to 54% college completion for children in the upper income quartile.  We can’t change all the factors impacting children who come from different household income levels.  But one think we can change is ensuring that all children, regardless of the income of their parents, receive a quality start.****

It also goes without saying that the influence of educational attainment extends beyond earnings and employment.  It impacts family formation, health and the likelihood of being involved in criminal activity.  In the latter regard, it is a shocking fact that 70% of incarcerated men and women are high school dropouts.

***The high school overall dropout rate is estimated at 20%.  By race and ethnicity:   White students - 14%; Black students - 31%; Hispanic students - 26%; Asian students - 12%.  (National Center for Education Statistics)

****”The Diploma Gap Between Rich and Poor,” Peter R. Orzag, BloombergView, March 5, 2013.

Given the above facts, it is not surprising that studies following students over several decades who received quality pre-Kindergarten education show significant cost-effective benefits.  They stem from a combination of 1) higher incomes attributable to higher education and 2) lower costs attributable to less special education, fewer repeated grades and lower costs in the criminal justice system.*****

Now, if everyone could afford quality pre-K on their own or if adequate funds could be provided through philanthropy, there might be no need for public support.  That is not the case.  At a cost of $8,000-10,000 per year, quality pre-K represents about 20% of the median average income of about $43,000, and for a person making $12 per hour, it represents over 30% of his or her salary.  Plainly unaffordable.

Philanthropy does help.  In the Cincinnati community, for example, the United Way funds pre-K and in-home visiting programs.  Still, combining philanthropy and existing government support, we are providing less than 30% of our population with quality pre-K experience.******   

This gets down to the basic issues of fairness and financial common sense.  I see no reason why a Nation committed to equal opportunity should have children and grandchildren born into families like my own, receive the benefit of a quality pre-K experience—an experience which we now know significantly impacts their entire lives—while children born into poorer families are denied that benefit.  This is especially true because we now know that quality pre-K programs provide a very attractive return on investment.  Put bluntly, I call them a “financial no-brainer.” 

*****See “Dollars and Sense:  A Review of Economic Analysis of Pre-K,” May 2007, particularly the reviews of the High/Scope Perry Pre-School Program; Chicago Child-Parent Centers and the Carolina Abecedarian Project.

******CEECO policy report—May 2014.  See Appendix A for the impact of poverty on enrollment and quality pre-K. 
 *****

A few asides:

·      In providing quality pre-Kindergarten education, there are questions that need to be answered.  For example:

a.     To what extent should public support be means-tested, providing lower support to families with higher incomes?  I believe that means testing should be a fundamental component of any system.

b.     Should public support cover both three and four-year-olds?  I believe the answer is yes.  There is substantial evidence that two years of pre-school is close to two times as effective as one year.

·      Pre-K education should be voluntary. 

·      While Pre-K education is essential, it is not a silver bullet.  Particularly for poor families, wraparound services providing health care for the child and his or her parents, as well as job placement and additional education where appropriate, are critical.

*****

In the end, what I am calling for is nothing more or less than providing equal opportunity—a fair chance, if you will--to children, as best we can, recognizing the overriding influence of a child’s family.  In this regard, I hearken back to the words of President John F. Kennedy as he challenged the Nation to support legislation that eventually emerged as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Shortly before his assassination in fall 1963, he addressed the discrimination inflicted on African-American children.

“This is one country.  It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.  We cannot say to 10% of the population that you can’t have that Right; your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have...as I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal Right to develop their talent and their ability.”

Fifty years ago, President Kennedy challenged the nation to give children the equal Right to develop their talents regardless of their race.  Today we are challenging ourselves to give children that Right regardless of their family’s income.

I hope and pray that will happen soon.  In truth, I believe it will.  The evidence is too strong, the cause too right to be denied.  The public understands this.  Recent polls show that 70% of American voters favor a plan to use public funds to make pre-school available to all children in our Nation.  Now, we must muster the political will to make it happen.  We must act quickly so that future generations of young people have the opportunity which they deserve and our Nation desperately needs.

As Krista Ramsey of the Cincinnati Enquirer poignantly writes:

“There really is a sense of urgency–of a clock ticking–for us to get this right because the developmental windows narrow if not close.  We keep acting like we can push a “Pause” button with young children’s learning–as if, if we get this thing wrong, we can just put them into a learning environment whenever we like, and all will be well.  I think people would be appalled if we stopped a young child from walking–just held him back!–or from talking, or learning to feed himself, etc.  It would border on abuse. 

There is another extraordinarily important point Krista makes: 

“Inequality in early childhood opportunities sets people up for a lifetime of inequality:  lower test scores, fewer educational options, lower confidence, fewer career options, lower earnings.  Why on earth would we pour so many resources into trying to close “achievement gaps” at 14 and “earning gaps” at 25, when we ignored the inequality at the educational/cognitive starting gate?  How financially foolish.”

  How financially foolish, indeed.  And how morally wrong.  So let’s get on with it—NOW!

"ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS"

“About as Bad as it Gets”

Normally, I don’t comment on what is happening on the national and international levels in these notes.  However, the recent developments demand a quick comment.

I can’t recall ever seeing so many parts of the world and parts of our nation’s policy unraveling at once.  We have the extreme terrorist group ISIS taking over Mosul and driving south in Iraq.  Obama will be blamed for having pulled out of Iraq too fast.  But there was no evident game-winning plan I could see.  Clearly President Maliki has been driving a huge wedge between the Shiites (his party) and Sunnis.  The Kurds have moved in on the north.  Iraq is out of control.  If you are a parent of a service person who lost their life in Iraq, you would feel more than sick.  You would be angry.

The airport in Karachi, Pakistan came under a vicious attack, almost 30 dead.

Our service people in Afghanistan are being killed at high rates with no promise whatsoever of when we leave.

“What has Bush’s war wrought?”  Sadly, the question answers itself.

And with all this going on, with the possibility that perhaps the U.S. and Russia working together would help forge a plan to control the inferno in Iraq and which continues in Syria, we are at loggerheads with Russia, failing to negotiate maturely on what can be done to support the development of a peaceful Ukraine that respects Russia’s and the West’s and, above all, Ukraine’s own interests.

Turning to our own nation, the polarization becomes even worse.  Eric Cantor, a conservative if there ever was one, is defeated in the Virginia primary by somebody even to his right.  This is the unexpected spoils of the gerrymandering which the Republicans have so vigorously advanced, creating a world that if you are not far to the right or far to the left you may not even have a chance in what is altogether a predictable general election for one party or the other. 

Any chances of meaningful legislation during the remainder of Obama’s term, distant to start with, are off the table.  All the talk about early childhood, substantive immigration reform, revision of the tax code which everyone agrees is arcane and resulting in business moving off-shore, all that is off the table. 

A recent poll conducted by Pew Research Center shows that this polarization is not just a function of Washington but of a large minority of people.  We are at a point where 30% of consistent conservatives say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member married a Democrat while 23% of consistent liberals say the same thing.  The division appears in other striking statistics of this survey.  Far more liberals than conservatives think it is important for a community to have racial and ethnic diversity (76% versus 20%), while far more conservatives than liberals attach importance to living in a place where people share their religious faith (57% versus 17%).

And the degree to which politically engaged Democrats or Republicans hold consistently liberal views or conservative views has gone up significantly.  For Democrats up from just 8% in 1994 to 38% today; for Republicans up from 23% in 1994 and 10% in 2004 to 33% being consistently Conservative today.

All of this cries out for a President in the next term who can really unify the country.  I cannot imagine that being anyone whose last name is either Clinton or Bush.  I hope we can find this individual and that he or she will be successful in gaining office.

In the meantime, we will work within our own “circles of influence” to do all we can.

Marx and Piketty and the Driving Impact of Poverty on Income and Wealth Inequality

Marx predicted growing class polarization and the disappearance of the middle class in societies based on a market economy. For more than a century the growth of the middle class and for a considerable period the narrowing of inequality 

proved that thesis wrong. Times are changing. We are becoming more bi-modal in income than at any time in the last hundred years. 

Piketty asserts that there will be a continuing greater return on capital than on labor, this driving further inequality. 

Driving this trend further is what is happening in education, the pre-cursor to what a person will earn in his/her career.

Children from wealthy families go to quality pre-K schools in far greater numbers than children from poor families do. These children enter kindergarten far more ready to learn with a far larger working vocabulary and up to an 18 months head start.

From that flow the likelihood of reading on grade by the end of the third grade, high school graduation,etc.

Now, in the last 24 hours I encounter these data:

FROM PAUL TOUGH ARTICLE "WHO GETS TO GRADUATE"; NYT MAGAZINE 5/18/2014

-About 25% of children born into the bottom half of the income distribution will have a bachelors degree by age 24.

-In contrast 90% of children born into families in top quartile will have the degree by age 24.

-And it is not just a question of basic ability. The graduation rate for students having about an average SAT score of 1,000-1,199 is 20% for students in the bottom income quartile and 67% in the top income quartile. 

-About 63% of students born into the bottom income quintile will move up to one of the top three quintiles (about 20% in each)  if they have a college degree. If they don't have a college degree

only about 33% will move up and with only about 5% in the top quintile. 

-40% of American students who start at a 4 year college haven/t earned a degree after 6 years. Rich kids tend to finish. Poor kids tend not to. 

If we are to have the best educated and prepared work force in the future, which we must it we are the country we need to be,  we must make transformational funding interventions to support poor families and children.

How?

1. Government (federal, state and local) funded pre-K for all children. Government funded home visiting for those in highest need.

2. Greater aid for college students.

3. Greater use of 2 year community and technical colleges. Four year college is not for all. 

As we have seen separately, the investments to provide these interventions all pay back multi-fold.

John

Russia-Ukraine-United States and the West

“There’s Plenty Of Blame To Go Around—Now Is The Time for Mature Leaders

To Step Forward To Take The Right Action For The Future”

April 2014

The most recent turn in the “up and down” relationship among Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the West has been a dismaying sight over the past month or so.  It is the culmination of a number of decisions that might have been different and some historical realities that won’t change.  And, as I reflect how this current situation might have been avoided, there is, I believe, “plenty of blame to go around.”

It is vital to view the situation from the perspectives of all sides, bearing the historical realities and current circumstances of all parties in mind.

Looking back at the almost 25 years of involvement I have had in Russia and the ex-Soviet Union since 1989, there have been many times when I believed the United States could have done things differently.

During the challenging ‘90s, we could have provide greater financial, technical and moral support.  We could have gone further in recognizing Russia as a partner.   We never did anything approximating what is now being offered to Ukraine ($27 billion; I only hope that it will happen; similar “promises” have gone wanting) or what we did in the Marshall Plan.  As then-Ambassador Jack Matlock reflected on the United States’ role in the reconstruction of Russia’s economy*:  “My point is not that the Bush administration, or the Clinton administration that followed it, is responsible for the mistakes that were made as the Soviet Union abandoned the command economy and Russia subsequently created a market economy.  They are not.  However, it is clear that most of the assistance and advice given by the West was not particularly helpful.  It was based more on a free-market fundamentalism than on the real problems of creating a market economy out of a collapsed command economy, much of the initial advice was not only useless, but sometimes actually damaging.”

Following that, the West moved to expand NATO into the bordering regions around Russia, including Poland (1999), the Baltics (2004) and Romania (2004) and Bulgaria (1994).  Then, and of greatest concern to Russia, we advanced the idea of extending NATO to Ukraine and Georgia as well as installing ABM launchers in Poland and the Czech Republic.  With the animosity still overhanging from the Cold War era, this might have been seen in the U.S. as akin to the Soviet Union’s earlier extending the Warsaw Pact to Cuba or Central America. 

*”Superpower Illusions” (pg. 110)

Yes, the expansion was done with a benign intention (defensive) but, to a country that had been attacked many times, it looked to many like a surrounding effort.   At a minimum, it fueled the animus of those who wanted to interpret it that way.  It fed the worst fears and allegations of those who wanted to “go back.”

As former Secretary of War, Robert Gates, says in his new book, “Duty:  Memoirs of a Secretary of War”:   “When I took office in 2007, I had shared with the president my belief that from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the magnitude of Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War and then in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which amounted to the end of the centuries-old Russian Empire.  The arrogance, after the collapse, of American government officials, academicians, businessmen, and politicians in telling the Russians how to conduct their domestic and international affairs (not to mention the internal psychological impact of their precipitous fall from superpower status) had led to deep and long-term resentment and bitterness.” 

Gates continued:  “What I didn’t tell the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after Bush 41 left office in 1993.  Getting Gorbachev to acquiesce to a unified Germany as a member of NATO had been a huge accomplishment.  But moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake.  Including the Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary quickly was the right thing to do, but I believe the process should then have slowed.  U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation (especially since we virtually never deployed the 5,000 troops to either country).  The Russians had long historical ties to Serbia, which we largely ignored.  Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.  The roots of the Russian Empire trace back to Kiev in the ninth century, so that was an especially monumental provocation.”

It was also natural for Putin to view the West’s strong support for Kosovo’s separating from Russia’s long-supported ally of Serbia as violating the rights of the Serbian state.  (To be clear, in my view, Kosovo’s achieving independence was the right outcome.)  And especially in hindsight, Russia viewed the invasion of Iraq as an unsanctioned act by the United States and by some Western countries to overthrow a sovereign leader based on weak, if not manufactured, allegations that Saddam Hussein was in the final stages of developing weapons of mass destruction. 

These realities were combined with enormous and, for me, overblown sensitivity on Putin’s part, grown in part, I suspect, from his career in the KGB.  To say that he became paranoid about the intentions of the United States would not be an over-statement.  And he surely saw it as a means of strengthening his own popularity at a time when it was declining.

More recently, I believe Putin has greatly exaggerated the mistreatment of Russians in Ukraine, including Crimea.  Characterization of the folks who went into Maidan Square as “Russia-phobes and Neo-Nazis” has been hyperbolic.  Surely there were some such people there, but to define the entire group in these terms in ludicrous.  Most of them surely simply wanted release from a corrupt and ineffective government.

Finally, we should not be surprised at the reaction that Putin and others in Russia had to the overturning of the agreement that had been reached on February 22 by Yanukovych and other Western countries before the ink was scarcely dry.  This agreement would have probably led to an election by the end of the year which would have voted Yanukovych out of office.  If one believes, as Putin certainly does (and there are reasons for this belief), that the movement in Maidan Square which led to the ouster of Yanukovych was incited to some degree by the West, one could take it as license to act.

And that’s exactly what Putin did.  I believe he seized on this as an “excuse” to move into Crimea.  It is obviously a purely personal judgment, but I don’t believe if that agreement had been allowed to unfold through the end of the calendar year, Russia would have moved to have the referendum for independence in Crimea or have absorbed it as they have. 

What’s more, I believe, Putin’s/Russia’s absorption of Crimea will prove to be a costly mistake for Russia and its people.  It will be a financial drain in its own right.  It has already produced sanctions, capital flight, a weaker ruble and it will, at least for a time, dampen foreign direct investment.  Nevertheless, we are where we are.

Stepping back, Russia has always had and always will have different interests than the United States and the West; some geographical, some ideological in nature.  For example, Russia is far more dedicated to the preservation of existing governments—to very strong governments--that are more autocratic than we believe is right.  The United States acclaims much greater allegiance to individual democracy, to individual rights, to everyone speaking up.

But, with all that, there are two things that are of paramount importance:

1.     There are many critical issues such as nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, on which it is absolutely critical that Russia, the United States and the West and the entire world work together on cooperatively. 

2.     Alienating and isolating Russia will significantly impede that cooperation.

********

So, what now? 

1.     We need to clearly define what we will not tolerate (e.g., any incursion into Ukraine or other independent country).

2.     We should recognize that Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not going to be overturned.

3.     We need to try to agree on what is in the common interest of our countries and the world.

4.     We need to identify the specific agenda items which we need to work together.

5.     We need quiet, tough-minded, no-nonsense, respectful interchanges among leaders in Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the West—leaders who understand each other’s history, culture and contemporary realities.⁽¹⁾

I would like to add here the excellent perspective provided to me by a Professor of Russian History at the University of Cincinnati, Willard Sunderland.

“The only point I’d suggest adding to your piece is that we should do everything we can to de-emphasize the neo-Cold War rhetoric and casual anti-Russian prejudice that has crept into the way our politicians and journalists/pundits tend to describe Russia.  There are too many simplifications in the way we are representing things, and there’s the risk that our simplifications will work against us.

Russia today is not the Soviet Union.  We are not on the edge of a titanic global contest between “our way” and “their way.”  You are absolutely right – we have nothing to gain from isolating the country.  Likewise, though Putin is most definitely not a Western liberal or conservative, as all our TV talking heads are telling us, he’s also not a Brezhnev or an Andropov.  I see him as a Russian statist conservative in the mold of the last great tsarist premiere Petr Stolypin.  He wants a strong Russian state and a stable international neighborhood, while also supporting Russia’s full engagement with the world.  I do not think that there’s a plan afoot to gather up the lands of the old USSR motivated by some sort of imperial nostalgia.  He’s not interested in a lot of difficult and costly border changes.  He is a pragmatist more than he is an ideologue.  And he’s also, in my view, far from in charge of everything we’re seeing.  He’s hardly a grand master poring over a would-be chess board, moving every piece exactly where he wants it.  I think he and the Russian power establishment were as shocked by Yanukovich’s flight from Kiev as anyone else.  Much of what’s happened since then has been more opportunism than master strategy.  Putting all of this together, I see a situation in which there is every reason to work with Putin rather than to double-down against him.  To that end, I think your last point is dead on:  firm engagement is the key.  Quiet, persistent, firm engagement.”

That is what we need now!

 ⁽¹⁾ I’d note this is the kind of interchange that in times past was conducted by leaders like

George Schultz and Eduard Shevardnadze.  I believe former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, was absolutely right in crediting the cultural sensitivity of certain U.S. leaders as a key factor in establishing good relations with their Russian counterparts:  “One of the keys to the success that Reagan, Schultz, Bush and Baker had in engaging the Soviet leaders,” Matlock writes, “was their attention to this factor [culture].  Reagan may not have mastered every detail of every arms control negotiation…but he spent as much time trying to understand Gorbachev’s thinking and the political constraints on his behavior as he did studying the ‘substance’ of the issues.  George Schultz was acutely aware that Eduard Shevardnadze, a Georgian, was immensely proud of this cultural heritage.  By showing interest in it and respect for it, Schultz was able to establish a degree of personal rapport with the Soviet Foreign Minister that helped them come to terms on issues that had resisted solution for decades.  James Baker picked up where Shultz left off and continued the relationship that benefitted both countries.”*

*”Superpower Illusions” (pg. 74)

RussiaUkraineUS_PlentyofBlame032814

"Days on Fire": Bush and Cheney in the White House: Sobering Lessons

“DAYS OF FIRE:  BUSH AND CHENEY IN THE WHITE HOUSE” BY PETER BAKER

This is, at once, an extremely well-written, mind-opening and horrifically sad book.  Perhaps more than any Administration other than Lyndon Johnson’s, George Bush’s was defined by what, in hindsight and, indeed, “foresight” for many, was the ill-chosen and ill-fated decision to enter Iraq. It offers sobering lessons for us in our daily lives. 

The natural response to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, from where the 9/11 attack was launched, was extended, with a pre-meditated intention almost from the start, to Iraq.  As Dick Cheney said well after the attack on Iraq and with its already being apparent how long the war would be--the decision to enter Iraq was pretty well made with the 9/11 attacks.

It was an “idée fixe” from the start in Bush’s and Cheney’s minds that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack even though there was no evidence of linkage with Al Qaeda.  Richard Clark, at the time Bush’s Counter-Terrorism Chief, was “greatly disturbed” when, right after 9/11, Bush told him to “see if Saddam Hussein did this.” When Clark responded that, “Mr. President, it was Al Qaeda,” Bush told him to dig deep.

The movement to the decision was enormously influenced by the combination of Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, his buddy, and Rumsfeld.  Wolfowitz, with no evidence, said that there was a “10-50% chance of Hussein being involved.”  Rumsfeld said that, “Even if there is a 10% chance, Saddam Hussein is involved,” our objective “should focus on eliminating him.”

Cheney never believed that there was any point in relying on the investigators to examine the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. 

There were people who clearly saw the risk.  The Republican House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, told Bush:  “It will be such a burden on your presidency, you’ll never be able to complete your domestic agenda.”  In the end, Armey felt he had no choice but to go along.  “It was a fateful decision.”   If the Republican Majority Leader had opposed the authorization of force, it would have freed other nervous Republicans and given cover to Democrats to oppose it as well.  Cheney “had accomplished his mission” in talking to Armey.  He had been showing photographs of aluminum tubes and satellite images of structures he called “weapons facilities” with no evidence that they were involved with building a nuclear capability.  In fact, the CIA had warned the British (who initially put forth the idea that the aluminum tubes were related to gaining nuclear capacity) that that was unlikely to be the case. 

Secretary of State Powell and National Security Advisor Rice were both opposed to moving ahead.  George Trent, the head of the CIA, grossly overstated the CIA findings when he said, “According to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.”  His own organization greeted that with skepticism, but no one spoke up.  The “conclusions were based on poor tradecraft, mistaken assumptions and over-interpretation,” per Peter Baker; that was a precise analysis of the situation.

The basic issue of whether to go in or not was predetermined, in an important sense, by deeply felt feelings that were not tested by fact.  Just prior to the launch, in discussions with Tony Blair, “Bush made clear he had decided to go to war regardless of what the inspectors found with the Security Council decided.  Indeed, he told Blair he had already set a launch date.”

There is a lot of speculation as to why Bush has this conviction.  Did it involve an over-hanging disappointment that his father had not taken out Hussein the first Gulf War?  Certainly his father never held such a concern.  Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, all joined at the hip for years, had a black view of Hussein and saw this as an “easily achieved” opportunity to do something much bigger than Afghanistan, to take out a tyrant. 

Clearly, there are lessons from this for all of us.  No aspect of this looms larger than the failure to examine the history of Iraq when the British went in the early 1920s.  Powell had it right when he said you’ll own it and you’ll have to take care of it.  That’s why George H.W. Bush did not continue to overthrow Hussein.

The estimates that Cheney supported of the number of troops that would be required proved grossly wrong.  Cheney’s misjudgment on the cost and length of the war was vividly conveyed in an interview on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.  When Russert asked:  “Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, bloody battle with significant American casualties?”  To this, Cheney responded:  “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”  How sad to read that today; how mistaken Cheney was.

In the early days following the overthrow, there was an atmosphere of almost bliss.  Everyone was agreeing that we had ridden America of a terrible enemy and we had created the hope of a genuine ally in the heart of the Middle East.  Bush and his team felt the war was about all but over.  That was before Bremner went in and made his ill-fated decisions which unleashed a Sunni-Shiite civil war that continues to this day.  It was becoming clearer and clearer that no one had a strategy for winning this new war.

The problem had been greatly aggravated by the fact that Bremner, who went in following the overthrow of Hussein, did pretty much exactly what Bush said should not happen, i.e., disperse the army, which turned hundreds of thousands of people on to the street.  Bush saw he was not following his advice but he did not override it. 

If I were to assess the failure of Bush’s leadership (and he’s not unique in what I’ll describe here), he did not bring all the players to the table and have a truly open-minded debate.  He didn’t allow the voices of Powell and Rice to be heard loud and long enough or to demand more evidence of the possibility they were right.  Nor did he follow what he believed, correctly, was the right path ahead after the overthrow of Hussein. 

There is a broader failure in Bush’s leadership here that is a lesson to us all, certainly me.  And that is that he did not bring his cabinet together to openly share views and stop back-biting.  The animosity between Rumsfeld and Powell and between Rice and Rumsfeld was classic. 

Bush’s lack of focus on resolving issues within his own cabinet were well-described by Baker.  One aspect of it was the tremendous relationship Rice had with Bush.  She was serving as National Security Advisor.  She communicated beautifully with Bush but, as Baker says, “She was a figure of great frustration to other members of the team who though she was too eager to raise differences and create false consensus rather than bring difficult choices to the President.  She had not been able to manage the sharp rivals within the War Cabinet.” 

At one point, during the second term, a good friend of Bush, Clay Johnson, described the White House structure as a “cluster fuck,” a jumble of crossed lines.  Bush apparently didn’t address this.  Rumsfeld did as he talked to the Chief of Staff Andy Card, saying: “You don’t know how to be Chief of Staff.  You’re failing the President in your job,” as Card later recalled.  In the end, however, that really was Bush’s job. 

I reflect on this and the “rivalries” which existed within our top team that I did not fully resolve. It’s not that I didn’t get into them; I did.  But, in hindsight, I did not resolve some of them as effectively as I should. 

Another “odd” aspect of Bush’s conduct was that he was not willing to personally tell cabinet leaders whom he was firing.  He did not go Colin Powell as he was being removed from Secretary of State.  He had Cheney go to Rumsfeld when he finally decided to replace him as Secretary of Defense with Bob Gates.  Really incredible.

*****

As Bush prepared for a second term inaugural, he called together a group of historians to gain input on what theme he should strike.  He was not well-served.  One of them was from Yale, John Lewis Gaddis.  Gaddis said it was a time for Bush “to think like Wilson, Roosevelt and Reagan.”  So he proposed that the President set the goal, “It will be the objective of the United States, working with the United Nations…to ensure by the year 2030…that there will be no tyrants left, anywhere in the world.” 

What a grandiose, all-knowing proclamation.  One more example, and there have been many, where our nation’s sense of exceptionalism took us to grounds where we did not deserve to be.  Note, the emphasis wasn’t even on bringing democracy.  It was getting rid of tyrants.  An objective, on one hand, you couldn’t argue with.  But can you imagine if we had undertaken that during the Soviet era and had said we were going to get rid of Khrushchev by force, or Mao Tse Tung in China?  The truth is that sometimes, a “tyrant” may be the best the country can have at a given point in time and we need to let history take its course.  That may have been the case in Egypt with Mubarak.  A decent dose of humility doesn’t hurt in matters like this.

As the second term got underway, you could almost feel Bush’s disillusionment in a statement he made to another member of his team:  “This is not working.  We need to take another look at the whole strategy.  I need to see some new options.”  The response:  “Mr. President, I am afraid you’re right.”

Not to carry the story on in any great detail, following from this came Bush’s singularly independent decision (other than Cheney) to mount the “surge,” the insertion of another 30-40,000 troops to bring security to help Iraq gain stability.  For a while it worked.  Casualties dropped precipitously.  It was, indeed, a brave decision; remarkable in that regard.  Bush was going against the judgment of the outgoing commanders in Iraq, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Congress, the public and his Secretary of State and closest advisor.  With him, of course, were Cheney and also John McCain.

As Baker reports, when Bush felt sorry for himself in those days, Laura reminded him that he chose to run for President.  “Self-pity is the worst thing that can happen to a presidency,” Bush told a writer.  “I’ve got God’s shoulders to cry on, and I cry a lot.  I do a lot of crying in this job.”  But he made the call.

This book shows that the belief that “Cheney ran Bush” was, in many ways, wrong and it was very definitely wrong in the second term.  Bush opposed Cheney on the bailout of the auto industry and on TARP; both extraordinarily brave and correct decisions in hindsight.  He opposed Cheney in making the decision to replace Rumsfeld.  And there were many other cases as well.

Bush’s was a tragic presidency, though history, as always, will tell the real tale; though what that “telling” is may change over time as it often has.  Tragic because he could have done good, but he was trapped in this personal view that it was right to take out Hussein because he was a tyrant and because he “might do bad things.”  He had his CIA so primed to find evidence that it delivered reports that, while balanced, lent themselves to misrepresentation.  I don’t believe Bush would have gone into Iraq if it had not been for the strength at that time of Cheney’s position.  And, of course, Cheney was being supported by others who were strong-minded, particularly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.