ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP

By William M. DiMascio
   Executive Director

The war in Iraq and the presidential campaign keep stirring the ashes of Vietnam. And, surprisingly to some at least, after three decades, embers are still burning. We buried a lot of angst when we finally left Southeast Asia, but we never concluded the national conversation, never achieved closure on the issue. We just sealed the tomb and moved on.

Now, like wisps of smoke escaping from the heap, threads of the long forgotten arguments float up in our consciousness and get our stomach acids roiling: Did someone dodge the draft? Did another lie about his conduct under fire? At what point should we distinguish a noble defense from a quagmire in the making? Are we once again allowing faulty political judgments to bleed a new generation?

In a recent interview on PBS, the distinguished author and journalist David Halberstam was quizzed about his experience in covering the Vietnam War for the New York Times. He used the term "abdication of leadership" to describe the conduct of individuals once characterized in his acclaimed book, The Best and The Brightest - and no one epitomizes that group more than Robert S. McNamara, the secretary of defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

McNamara led the buildup of U.S. forces although he later admitted knowing as early as 1962 or 1963 that the conflict was unwinnable. The abdication of leadership seems apt enough to describe his failure to seek an end to the war, which eventually claimed the lives of some 58,000 Americans and three million Vietnamese. Four decades later McNamara recounted those years in his memoir, In Retrospect, where he clung to the idea that the war was somehow honorable writing, "I truly believe we made an error not of values and intentions but of judgment and capabilities."

Our intention in the Vietnam War was to put the Chinese and Soviets on notice that we were not to be trifled with. That's not a bad message, but it loses its value if millions of people have to be killed to deliver it. There are limits to how much badness can be imposed in order to achieve something good.

One has to wonder if today's conflict in Iraq isn't a similar tragedy resulting from an abdication of leadership cloaked in steely resolve. We have changed the regime of Saddam Hussein, but the cost has been enormous and continues to grow. Already we have lost more than 1,000 Americans and killed countless Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars in properties, inflamed anti-western sentiments and encouraged the development of future terrorists.

And, the dangers of such vacuous leadership are not confined to history or foreign affairs. Failed leadership affects our lives today as it did 40 years ago and at home as it did abroad. In the criminal justice arena, for example, it happens everyday in situations such as these:

The confirmation of a highly qualified nominee for the Pardons Board is being stymied by a politically ambitious senator who wants the public to know how tough on crime he can be. This is power politics in its crudest sense - designed to satisfy one individual's ego at the expense of the public good.

Lawmakers openly agree that mandatory minimum sentences have been ineffective in deterring crime, contributed to the overuse of costly prison facilities for non-violent offenders and impacted minorities more harshly than others. At the same time they refuse to take steps to eliminate these sentences for fear of political retaliation.

Prison officials cede responsibility for "corrections" to advocates of bread-and-water style punishment by eliminating programs that enable inmates to make constructive use of their time in confinement. Ultimately, this runs counter to the public interest because ex-offenders return to the communities with fewer marketable or social skills and more intensely hostile attitudes.

Policy experts limit their initiatives to those endeavors that are considered politically safe - re-entry programs are hot right now - instead of addressing areas that have far greater potential for saving money and improving the system. The state could save tens of millions of dollars by reducing the length of inmate confinement, which is the harshest in the nation and does little to reduce crime.

Leadership is a tricky business. Some people think it consists of exercising power. But when the world's most powerful individuals are remembered as abdicating leadership, it is clear that more is involved. At least two initial steps are essential to ethical leadership: one has to do with decision-making which can be extremely difficult at times, especially when the choices are not between right and wrong but between right and right. The other step has to do with taking action: doing something - hopefully for the greater good of humankind -- about the decisions that are made.

Finally, an element that is so often overlooked is the involvement of the public - not just special interests, egos or political cronies - in a process of rational deliberation. This at least ensures that an evaluation of all the potential consequences is undertaken: that the options are considered and the pros and cons are weighed.

When the public's interest is compromised by leaders who shortchange the process, the issue doesn't disappear. It smolders, like Vietnam. And, none of us is better off as a result.