Andrew Roberts analogizes that both Truman and Bush will have left office with extremely low approval ratings and a foreign policy that has been judged a failure. He goes on to predict that, like Truman, Bush will be regarded as a great president. The analogy should be of no comfort to Bush's supporters. Truman was unpopular, and his foreign policy deemed a failure, because of the Korean War. Truman's handling of the Korean War is still considered a foreign policy failure. Truman is considered a great president because he was, in retrospect, successful in other areas. Surely Andrew Roberts, a historian, knows this. I can only assume he is being dishonest.
On to the merits. The article gives this pretty good summary of Bush's supposed positive legacy.
The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.Hussein was an awful dictator whose removal from power is a good thing. No reasonable person ever denied that. It remains to be seen whether Iraq will become a liberal democracy. I would say the odds are still against that final outcome.
Even if that is the outcome, it came at great financial cost to the United States, with great sacrifice on the part of many soldiers and their families, and with great loss of life in Iraq. Will a liberal Iraq be worth it? Additionally, the disregard for diplomacy leading up to the war badly strained our international relationships.
The conduct of the war is nothing to be proud of. If we have a stable and peaceful Iraq, it will be in spite of - not because of - Bush's leadership. He went in with too few troops. He then stuck by Rumsfeld well after it was clear that Rumsfeld was not up to the task. The surge, the impact of which I believe has been overblown by the right in an effort to take more credit for recent progress than Bush or McCain deserve, was not even Bush's idea. Finally, he authorized torture and other abuses of power for which I will forever be ashamed of my country.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a no-brainer. I give Bush no credit for that. Further, instead of seeing that project through, he diverted attention to Iraq. The author credits Bush with "the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere," so why is Osama bin Laden still putting out tapes? Did Bush disrupt al Qaeda? Maybe. Smash? Not so much. I would expect any president to have at least overthrown the Taliban and disrupted al Qaeda. You don't get credit for doing the minimum.
In the article, Andrew Roberts says we should give Bush credit for the lack of a terrorist attack after 9/11. According to Roberts, if there is a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center during the first year of a president's first term and none during the rest of his two terms, he has responded to the threat as well as possible. So I'm sure you can understand my surprise when he described Clinton's response to al Qaeda as ineffective. After all, there was an attack on the WTC in 1993 and no other successful attacks from Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil until after Bush took office. Roberts describes Clinton as refusing to act against al Qaeda. However, some conservatives accused Clinton of an attempt to "wag the dog" when he ordered strikes against al Qaeda in 1998. During the transition in early 2001, the Bush Administration reportedly had little interest in the Clinton Administration's strong recommendations for dealing with al Qaeda.
I'm fairly certain that, if there had been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Andrew Roberts and the rest of the Bush apologists would have plenty of (good) reasons for absolving Bush of responsibility. They were preparing for such a possibility years ago by talking about how we have to succeed 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to succeed once. Even with our best efforts, attacks can still happen. What effective measures has Bush taken that any other president wouldn't have taken? I can't think of any. While I criticize his lack of attention to terrorism before 9/11, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 because I have no concrete reason to believe he could have prevented it even if he were paying attention. However, I'll give Bush credit for the lack of a terrorist attack since 9/11 if he accepts full responsibility for 9/11. No, "But Clinton!" Full responsibility.
Bush's actual record is terrible. Port security remains neglected. The war in Iraq has been a drain on resources and a recruiting tool for terrorists. I'll conclude with former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora's comments to the Senate last week explaining how Bush's detention and torture policies killed Americans.
2 comments:
Um, what he said.
In this post, I stated that the surge wasn't Bush's idea. Was it Dean's idea?
Post a Comment