There are almost no situations in which a presidential administration knows all the relevant information about a geopolitical adversary. Instead, the administration, relying on known facts and extrapolated theories, must apply judgment to its ultimate conclusions. Too many, however, don’t want to recognize this reality, and insist that Trump and his team are reckless if they act upon anything but full and perfect information.
This principle was illustrated when Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation. Margaret Brennan insisted that, absent perfect information, it was impossible for the president to have chosen a valid course of action:
“Are you saying that the United States did not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization?” Brennan asked of Rubio’s use of the word “ambitions.
“That’s irrelevant,” Rubio argued.
“That is the key point in US intelligence assessments,” Brennan shot back. “You know that.”
“No, it’s not,” Rubio said.
“Yes, it was!” Brennan replied.
“I know that better than you know that, and I know that’s not the case,” Rubio quipped, adding, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “I’m asking you whether the order was given,” Brennan explained.
“It doesn’t matter if the order was given,” Rubio said. “They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.”
Rubio later took issue with Brennan’s line of questioning, arguing, “That’s not how intelligence is read.”
“That’s not how intelligence is used,” he insisted.
Inadvertently, Brennan touched on the key point for which every president is tested at one point or more during his administration—judgment. Brennan’s questions presuppose that a president (or, at least, a Republican president) has perfect knowledge. Any less, and Brennan’s default position would be to do nothing. According to her line of questioning, taking consequential actions without certainty amounts to an impeachable offense.
Thank God that Brennan is not our president!
Image created riffing off the two-buttons meme. Public domain.
Brennan is not the only one. Immediately after the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, most on the left and some on the right claimed that President Trump was somehow ill-advised and did not have enough information to inform his decision to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Democrats and ostensibly conservative naysayers appear to be religiously attached to two concepts at the moment:
Given that no information about an enemy is perfect, all functional administrations must confront facts that should inform us (sometimes imperfectly) of likely outcomes, and then apply their judgment to determine the necessary actions to be taken. Doing nothing in every situation where there is less than full information—which is what the president’s opponents are now insisting is the only safe course—can and does lead to bad outcomes just as often as action itself.
Iran is not a good actor. We know that because of what it’s said and what it’s done for the past 46 years. And if bad actors boast that they intend to bring imminent destruction to their enemies, we must take them at their word. When Saddam Hussein said he had weapons of mass destruction, it was reasonable to believe him. The mistake was in trying for full-scale regime change, not in believing his bluster. Looking back at history, all megalomaniacal dictators have clearly signaled their intentions, and doing nothing was a green light for them.
There are few things in this world as consequential, unknowable, and potentially destabilizing as nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen. Didn’t we learn our lesson with North Korea, which invented the art of deception, false promises, sleight of hand, and a maniacal commitment to achieve nuclear weapon parity to ensure the regime’s survival, or, in the case of Iran, to destroy every living Jew they can?
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at www.1plus1equals2.com.