Prudence and Presidential Ethics: The Decisions on Iraq of the Two Presidents Bush

Abstract

are counterparts in personal life to these attributes, the prudence of political leaders has a further dimension because of their responsibility for the welfare of the polity, whether a city or an entire nation. The importance ofpolitical prudence in the U. S. presidency is illustrated by a comparative analysis of the decision-making processes regarding Iraq in the administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. The sharp contrasts between them suggest that prudence and other political virtues may be substantially independent of ideology, class, and social background. This essay discusses the importance of the virtue of prudence to presidential ethics. It examines the nature of prudence through an analysis of the decision making of Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush to go to war with the Republic of Iraq. The wars began only 12 years apart; the presidents shared a father-son connection; they also shared many advisors, party affiliation, and moderate conservatism. Both viewed themselves as charting new courses, one in a post—Cold War environment, and one in a world changed by 9/11. Both presidents had initiated changes earlier: George H. W. Bush overthrew Manuel Noriega in Panama, and George W. Bush overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; both faced a military reluctant to embark on war. The similarities of personnel and situations provide a unique opportunity for comparative analysis. This essay studies the two decisions to go to war through the lens of the virtue of political prudence. The analysis will illustrate the central role that prudence should have in the ethics of presidential leadership by demonstrating how