Why failure is still not an option

At Kennedy Space Center in Florida a tee-shirt is on sale, bearing the legend "Failure is not an option". The phrase dates from the time of Apollo XIII, when the staff of Mission Control at Houston refused to countenance the possibility that they might not bring their astronauts home alive. That was in another era, of course: before the end of the Cold War, before the fall of Saigon and America's humiliating exit from Vietnam.

How times change. A weakened American administration is bogged down in another war far from home, and a tired and divided American political establishment is desperately trying to fashion an exit strategy. The Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group report has provided such a strategy: cut and run. Failure may not be an attractive option, but at least we know it's achievable.

Against all odds, given the weakness of his political position at home, President Bush is refusing to give in to defeatism. In sending 20,000 additional troops to secure Baghdad the President is moving boldly because he understands the consequences of failure. Weakness, as his former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld liked to say, is a provocation. It encourages the enemies of America, and the enemies of America are the enemies of freedom and democracy worldwide. A perceived American defeat in would be incalculably more catastrophic than the war itself has been. Until now, the likes of Al Qaeda have had to make do with propaganda victories, which they have nevertheless exploited profitably. An American defeat in Iraq would hand militant Islamism its first military victory over the West. The world would know that the West lacks the stomach for a long struggle.

The lacking ingredient is will. In times where a people is tiring of war, leadership is required to restore confidence, and maintain resolve. Bush has shown that he has the will, even when the courage of the American people and a large portion of the American political establishment is flagging. This is the mark of real leadership.

On this side of the Atlantic, the British public as a whole has never been very enthusiastic about the Iraq War. Nevertheless, Tony Blair has been a stalwart leader with a clear understanding of what is at stake, but he also is much weakened and will not be with us much longer. What can we expect in the future? The first thing to be said is that America's new strategy will not much affect the situation in Basra where British troops are operating. But still, American and British policy have been inseparably linked throughout the whole saga.

Perhaps not for much longer, however. Gordon Brown has let it be known that he intends not to follow the United States as closely as his predecessor has done. The Conservatives, for their part, have expressed scepticism of the new Bush plan, and have called for training of the Iraqi forces along the lines suggested by the Baker/Hamilton report in order to facilitate an early withdrawal. In other words, the mood music has changed. The urge to draw a line under the whole episode is growing. No matter that there is a country which needs to be secured, a new democracy that needs to be nurtured, a job that cannot be left undone because it is inconvenient, dangerous or just too difficult. The signs are that in the next few years the West may not have the leadership it needs or deserves.