If, as I suggested yesterday, any rehabilitation of George W. Bush depends on 1) the post-2006 turnaround in Iraq continuing and 2) his getting credit for it, then I wonder whether a McCain victory in November would raise the chances that Bush's reputation will improve once he leaves office - as Bill Kristol, among others, has argued - or diminish them. To my mind, the biggest reason to expect that over the long run Bush won't get much credit for the turnaround in Iraq, assuming it persists, is that by late '06 he had become so (deservedly) unpopular that the selling of the new Iraq policy essentially had to be outsourced to other figures - John McCain chief among them. And if the Arizona Senator is elected President on the strength of his support for the Surge (while insisting that he had the right Iraq policy all along and Bush only came to it reluctantly, and when it was almost too late), then the election results will reinforce an already-existing narrative that associates the policy more with McCain than with Bush. Whereas if Barack Obama is elected President, after attacking the Surge and proposing a swift and complete withdrawal instead, and then finds himself - as I suspect he will - continuing the Bush approach (a very, very gradual drawdown) rather than taking the path he's advocated on the campaign trail, it may throw into relief for posterity Bush's ownership of what, with any luck, will be remembered as the best decision of his Presidency.
« Progress | Main | My Rejection of Liberalism »
McCain and the Bush Legacy
04 Jun 2008 11:21 am
Comments (70)
Ross,
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's a completely flawed argument.
"any rehabilitation of George W. Bush depends on 1) the post-2006 turnaround in Iraq continuing and 2) his getting credit for it"
No, because HE BROKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You just don't seem to understand that part of this. Leave aside that he lied about the reasons for the war, the War itself was criminally incompetent.
If you shot someone and then performed surgery that saved their life, that wouldn't redeem you, because you shouldn't have fucking shot them in the first place.
If he now somehow fixed New Orleans, would that rehabilitate the gross negligence that took place originally?
Please. This is such a ridiculous argument that I Ambinder is looking rational.
Moe, If your post had been visible, I wouldn't have posted. It pretty much sums it up.
"No, because HE BROKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE."
George Bush broke Iraq? Because it was a lovely, jolly place with Saddam in power?
Terry Ann,
That's a fatuous gambit and you know it.
Terry Ann, were you born stupid, or are you just working very hard at being a nitwit?
No one is suggesting that Iraq was a "lovely, jolly place" under Saddam. Does that give us the right to go in and butcher it? How many other countries are you going to break on that basis?
Hundreds of thousands dead - even though the Bushpigs can't even bother to keep track - millions displaced - and idiots think it's all good because Iraq wasn't "jolly" in the first place. Amazing.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Moe,
Thanks for the name calling. So much for having a civil conversation.
Terry Ann, you can't set up a moronic straw man like "lovely, jolly place" and then pretend you were being civil. Grow up. If you think post-invasion Iraq is so promising, wash the Goth makeup off of your "open-minded" face and get over there and "help."
McCain in addition to being a key proponent of the now successful change of military strategy in Iraq was highly critical of the failed Bush/Rumsfeld/Abizaid strategy against the insurgency. He is in a position to take credit on both points.
Should the Iraq War turn out well, as it now bids fair to do, There will be plenty of credit rightly paid to Bush, as well as to McCain, Petraeus, et al
McCain needs to make the case that the Iraq War bids fair to be won and that Obama's policy of hasty withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground is a defeatist position.
Actually, the brain damaged dogs with imaginary bones are those invested in an Iraq defeat in order to humiliate Bush who haven't been paying attention to reality on the Iraq ground.
Ross,
George Bush doesn't even think he will have a positive legacy--otherwise he wouldn't have done more than any other president to keep his Government documents confidential as long as possible. You never address this.
Moe,
Again, you go with personal attacks. What did I do to you to warrant that?
Petey leavitts: "Should the Iraq War turn out well, as it now bids fair to do, There will be plenty of credit rightly paid to Bush, as well as to McCain, Petraeus, et al
McCain needs to make the case that the Iraq War bids fair to be won and that Obama's policy of hasty withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground is a defeatist position."
I just wonder which tired old paleocon columnist Petey pulled "bids fair" from. I'd google it but I really don't care that much.
This fantasy of "victory" in Iraq is a childish one. None of the stated goals have been met. The violence continues, the infrastructure is a mess, and the displaced are still displaced.
Petey smells victory, but he just likes the way corpses smell.
I seem to recall Bush stating that an Islamic Iraq was unacceptable. But since Islam is part of the Iraqi constitution, then isn't Iraq already a failure?
To use an analogy, wouldn't that be like saying a peaceful Vietnam which is our trading partner vindicates Johnson, despite the fact that the communists won?
Ross, the big problem with your premise is that you seem to assume that there has been some kind of real turnaround in Iraq. What's been accomplished is a slight decline in violence (to levels that were intolerable in 2005), the diminishment of AQI (a real achievement, although one mostly attributable to Iraqis tired of being called apostates and seeing their neighbors blown up), and the arming and buying off of Sunni militias. What we have here is some small tactical gains.
But that doesn't mean diddly if we don't actually start achieving political and strategic goals. The Iraqi gov't is still a shambles. Moqtada Sadr can summon an army with snap of his fingers, Sistani is edging away from us and Maliki, and the Sunni militias were arming today could turn on the Shia gov't tommorrow. Add to that the fact that ethnic cleansing and partition are already a done deal in most of the country and we're keeping the peace in Baghdad by building walls between neighborhoods.
What strategic goal are we pursuing here? There's no good reason to continue this occupation and the surge never provided one.
I supported the decision by George H. W. Bush to leave Saddam in power after the 1991 war because removing Saddam would have strengthened Iran, to my mind a far worse enemy than Iraq because of Iran's size and the nature of its political system. Therefore the only conceivable justification for starting the current war was the weapons of mass destruction argument, which I think even most Bush supporters now realize was awfully weak. For this reason I can't see any future historian rehabilitating George Bush's presidency. Starting the war was a horrible blunder, the way it was waged was worse, and Karl Rove's attempt to demonize the Democrats as traitors, certainly carried out with Bush's approval, ranks right up there with Woodrow Wilson's maladroit handling of the League of Nations issue. Bush is our worst president, and all of Ross's sophism won't change the judgement of history.
Ross,
What evidence do we have of Obama's own words or writings that he will end up continuing the slow draw down? I have tried to make the same argument myself, but people seem unconvinced.
Ross,
What evidence do we have of Obama's own words or writings that he will end up continuing the slow draw down? I have tried to make the same argument myself, but people seem unconvinced.
Stan,
"Bush is our worst president"
Isn't that an overstatement?
If I were to concede to you that Iraq is blunder and I can see where you coming from. However, Vietnam was widely considered a blunder with much more consequences. Why don't you consider LBJ the worst president than? If you are going to deem someone a historical failure than why not put into historical context also.
""Bush is our worst president"
Isn't that an overstatement? "
Depends on who you think is worse, but if you put LBJ as worse than Bush, you're already on shaky ground. I can't see anyone in the 20th century, dem or rep, who is as bad.
He has all the vices of the past few presidents and none of their virtues.
"I supported the decision by George H. W. Bush to leave Saddam in power after the 1991 war because removing Saddam would have strengthened Iran"
This and your other premises need to be challenged. The decision by George H. W. Bush to leave Saddam in power after the 1991 war was to avoid the very consequences (A fractured state that we are morally/politically obligated to try and rebuild) This would have necessitated forgoing a clear victory and replacing it with a quagmire before his re-election bid.
Anti-Bush and anti-war advocates need to remember the historical record before they pile on in the midsts of war weariness.
Multiple European allies and support, multiple U.N. resolutions, clear and persistent belligerence and international aggression against the world community and Gulf region in particular.
Strong majorities of Americans for the war, Strong majorities of house and senate democrats for the war. All prominent leadership of both parties.
Multiple foreign and domestic intelligence agencies, multiple U.N. resolutions for the use of force.
And on & on, & on…….
Historians (unlike partisans) cannot ignore such matter of clear historical record
Terry Ann writes: "If I were to concede to you that Iraq is blunder and I can see where you coming from. However, Vietnam was widely considered a blunder with much more consequences. Why don't you consider LBJ the worst president than? If you are going to deem someone a historical failure than why not put into historical context also."
Please learn the difference between "then" and "than" if you're going to continue to post here.
I do view Johnson as a failure, but at least he had the 1964 Civil Rights Act going for him. Dumbya's time in office has been singularly devoid of accomplishment. America is a weaker nation in all regards than it was on the day he took office.
Moe you wrte, "I do view Johnson as a failure, but at least he had the 1964 Civil Rights Act going for him. Dumbya's time in office has been singularly devoid of accomplishment."
Um, how about females not wearing burkas and going to school in Afghanistan as an accomplishment?
Moe you wrte, "I do view Johnson as a failure, but at least he had the 1964 Civil Rights Act going for him. Dumbya's time in office has been singularly devoid of accomplishment."
Um, how about females not wearing burkas and going to school in Afghanistan as an accomplishment?
And Vietnam was also JFK's and Nixon's failure, and LBJ had an impressive domestic record, and LBJ served a little over one term, and LBJ didn't take America from the most respected and honored nation in the world to an international laughing stock in record time.
Terry Ann
"Please learn the difference between "then" and "than" if you're going to continue to post here."
Please don’t take the resident English teacher too seriously Terry.
This nefarious vulgarian has been banned from multiple sites’ including this one. He is in turn dismissed, ignored, rejected, and mocked on a regular basis.
GruntledCenter claims: "Strong majorities of house and senate democrats for the war."
This is quite simply untrue, since House Democrats voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution, with 126 nays and 81 ayes, as they say.
But of course Gruntled is just joing a long list of Bush apologists who aren't concerned with reality or facts.
Dumbya and Dickless weren't, either, which is why they deliberately lied us into a war which they then waged in an incompetent fashion. As Marlon Brando once said, "This I do not forgive."
Fouad Ajami wrote the following in January 2008 about Bush's role in the Iraq War:
His war has given birth to a new Iraq. The shape of this new Iraq is easy to discern, and it can be said with reasonable confidence that the new order of things in Baghdad is irreversible. There is Shiite primacy, Kurdish autonomy in the north, and a cushion for the Sunni Arabs--in fact a role for that community slightly bigger than its demographic weight. It wasn't "regional diplomacy" that gave life to this new Iraq. The neighboring Arabs had fought it all the way.
Events since January have become even more favorable on both the military and political sides.
The left is for the most part invested politically/emotionally in an Iraq War defeat and incapable of making a fair assessment of the reality on the ground.
Peter-
F*ck you--There is really nothing more disgusting than asserting that your opponent WANTS people to die.
Terry Ann, don't expect civil treatment from MoeLarryJim. He is well known in blogdom as the Jim Keane who gets banned. He is indeed a nefarious vulgarian whom most people try to ignore.
Terry Ann says:
"However, Vietnam was widely considered a blunder with much more consequences."
Wrongo. We went to war in Viet Nam. Then we left. What we should know by now is how strategically marginal that country compares to Iraq.
Iraq and the broader Middle East is a whole other ball game.
Even if MoeLarryJesus clones herself, they all gaymarry, drive Priuses and, miracle of miracles, Taxachusetts becomes the largest populated state WE WILL STILL REQUIRE HYDROCARBONS TO POWER OUR ECONOMY. And not just us! The developing world too!
Do you wear makeup? petrochemicals (pc)! gel your hair? too! synthetic fabrics? pc! paint your house? yep! have any polymeric material in that house? also!
When and if the large automakers finally move us towards an "energy" petroleum independence it will not be a complete independence.
So this part of the world is uniquely blessed with this resource that the whole world will require. For now, The United States finds itself with the world's largest economy/military.
So the U.S. is honored to secure the shipping lanes for the peaceful flow of this resource worldwide without incident. Of course we benefit, but so do others.
THEREFORE, this region with a higher geopolitical importance (with all its historical animosities) is not some region to implement some half-baked hair-brained schemes recklessly.
It is too early for we little ones to, as Ross mentions, know how future historians will paper over the initial strategic mistake. But given the odds for what could be a huge blunder which might perhaps put in motion a LOT MORE kinds of bad consequences, it doesn't look good.
Personally, I don't think Bush will be judged the worst president because at least he pursued THE Surge (TM) after the 2006 election, where he could've very well continued doing the same thing or worse.
It looks like it will be pretty much a hand off to McCain. Bush is standing quite poor in the rankings, though.
More Democrats voted against the first (unparallel multilateral) first gulf war than voted against the second (allegedly) “unilateral” gulf war II.
This was the breakdown in our democracy that led to Gulf war II. The democrats completely caved in part because their history of weak-knees was so established that they couldn’t effectively oppose a war effort after 9/11.
Indeed – this is part of the argument for Obama & against Hillary and explains why the left flocked to him. Not being in the Senate he was “free” to claim he was against the war. Meanwhile the party establishment and the press got on board.
If Obama was in the Senate his presidential aspirations would have undoubtedly led him to vote yes (as Hillary did)
The Democrats are so pushed around by their left that they have not been able (since Vietnam) to show the ability to counter aggression. In practice this has meant that when a war is clearly necessary & justifiable they vote against it (Gulf I) and when it is arguably unnecessary and not justified they vote for it (Gulf II).
I’m a Democrat and we have NO leadership.
Scoop Jackson died a long time ago.
Terry Ann writes: "Um, how about females not wearing burkas and going to school in Afghanistan as an accomplishment?"
Are you actually stupid enough to think women in Afghanistan aren't wearing burqas?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/china_threatens_afghanistans_b.html
Afghanistan at this point is a holding action and nothing more - and no, I don't view what we're doing there as an "accomplishment."
"Even if MoeLarryJesus clones herself, they all gaymarry, drive Priuses and, miracle of miracles, Taxachusetts becomes the largest populated state WE WILL STILL REQUIRE HYDROCARBONS TO POWER OUR ECONOMY. And not just us! The developing world too!
Do you wear makeup? petrochemicals (pc)! gel your hair? too! synthetic fabrics? pc! paint your house? yep! have any polymeric material in that house? also! "
Why the sudden flood of semi-literate goobers?
Gruntled grunts: "I’m a Democrat and we have NO leadership.
Scoop Jackson died a long time ago. "
Good riddance. He was a warmongering scumbag who supported the Vietnam debacle right up until the bitter end. He would have been the first Democrat to suck up to Bush - or as I call it, "pull a Lieberman" - and support the idiotic invasion of Iraq.
Mr Leavitt, your remark that the LEFT is emotionally committed to defeat in Iraq is an amazingly stupid statement.
Little bit of wisdom: 'Failing to plan is planning to fail'. By which measure the Administration 'planned to fail' in Iraq.
Little more: 'Remove the log from your own eye...' The present 'ConservativeMovement' is merely the rump left behind when millions of Republicans and reasonable, fair minded Americans deserted the Administration. The Right's emotional commitment to GeoWBush's presidency has left them a dwindling minority even within the Republican party. Yet with pavlovian regularity s wingnut like yourself does what Rove taught, attack the left on their strong points.
Little more: Don't say that to my face. I might shove my purple heart and honorable discharge right up your incredibly arrogant right wing nose.
Anyone with a functioning synaps, anyone who can find their way to the Atlantic web page and then to this comments section, has encountered a Left that is full of debate and argumentation about everything and the war in particular. And you blow off the Left as if everyone here were psychologically unfit to weigh the arguments pro and con.
You can do better than that, Mr Leavitt. We're disappointed but hopeful that something sensible and intelligent can come from you. Don't let us down.
Regarding the likelihood of GeoWBush's legacy turning to praise and honors, I am reminded of Damon Runion's quip: The race may not be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, BUT THAT IS THE WAY TO BET.
Wonder if Ross is making any book on that?
JohnMcC
That’s strong stuff.
I would not discount Peter's point however. At this point (politically) a good portion of the left does seem invested in defeat.
I am confident that should a Democrat be elected this will change. Suddenly Iraq's prospects will seem greatly improved, "success" will be seen as definable & within reach, the fact on the ground will reveal optimism.
A continued presence will suddenly become justifiable & politically wise. The American people will suddenly be asked to show patience and hope as the troop presence is used to gain further political progress for the nascent Iraq democracy.
JohnMcC writes: "You can do better than that, Mr Leavitt. We're disappointed but hopeful that something sensible and intelligent can come from you. Don't let us down."
Don't waste your time. Petey hasn't had a cogent thought since the last time Saint Reagan did, and he's not about to start now.
Some of you appear to be confused with why America entered the first Gulf War.
A little history lesson for you guys. The Objective of the first Gulf war was simply to end Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.
After Iraq pulled it's troop from Kuwait the mission was complete. Had George H. W. Bush gone ahead and pressed across Iraqi lines and removed Sadam from power, this would have created a new war with new objectives, and they would have called it Operation Desert Overtime or something crazy like that.
His decision not to remove Sadam from power had nothing to do with not wanting to strengthen Iran. H. W. simply stayed within the defined objectives of the operation.
Here is a link if anyone cares to educate them selves.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/
I nominate this Ross Douthat post for worst political prediction of 2008.
Before the invasion, Iraq was a Sunni state that, despite its smaller size, functioned as a check on the power of the adjoining Shiite state of Iran. Now it is a Shiite state--as justice and democracy may require it to be--but weakened and subject to Iranian influence.
Even before 2003, Iran was a considerable power in the region. Now it's much more of one, its nuclear program continues apace, and its influence not only in Iraq but in the Levant grown more considerable.
There are credible reports than the Bush administration brushed aside offers from Iran to negotiate differences in the months after the invasion when the US looked a winner in the region.
It seems to me that it was ill advised--contrary to its own interests-- of the United States to disturb the regional balance of power as it did, and that doing so has served the interests of Iran, and probably aided the rise within Iran of virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli factions. It also seems to me that the decision making process, if that is an apt term, that led to war was one not conducive to due consideration of America's strategic interests in the region. As I understand that process, the Secretary of State was frozen out, the National Security Adviser ineffective, the Secretary of Defense insouciantly focused on using as few troops as possible. And those charged with giving the Secretary of Defense strategic advice have admitted they did a poor job of it.
Everyone admits that the proffered rationale for the war turned out to be mistaken, and whatever the real reasons for the war, in light of its working to serve Iranian interests more than those of the United States, they too look to be deficient.
It's midnight and the owl flew hours ago.
George Bush will be remembered for one thing, and that is the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.
Again people say Iraq is the "greatest foreign policy blunder in American history" and Bush is the "worst president ever," lose credibility with me.
First, it's premature to do so because we don't know how Iraq will turn out. Second, we've had centuries of foreign policy history and to call Iraq "the greatest foreign policy blunder" seems to leave some of .
If you want to say Iraq was a huge blunder then do so but people make such erroneous exaggerations just makes me happy that people who comment on blogs will NOT be writing our history books but it will involve the past twenty years.
Again people say Iraq is the "greatest foreign policy blunder in American history" and Bush is the "worst president ever," lose credibility with me.
First, it's premature to do so because we don't know how Iraq will turn out. Second, we've had centuries of foreign policy history and to call Iraq "the greatest foreign policy blunder" seems to leave out some our history.
If you want to say Iraq was a huge blunder then do so but people who make such erroneous exaggerations just makes me happy they will who NOT be writing our history books because it will only involve the past twenty years apparently.
I'm just glad Terry Ann won't be writing our history books because I would prefer that they be written in English.
In answer to a good question posed above, the reason I think Bush ranks below Lyndon Johnson is that the Vietnam War, though a moral disaster, didn't have major foreign policy consequences for the US. For example, Nixon visited China during the Vietnam War and established good relations with the Chinese leadership, and during this period we enjoyed stable relations with the Soviet Union. The Vietnam War was awful, but it didn't have a lasting effect on our position in the world. The Iraq War, on the other hand, has made the US hated in the Arab countries and heartily disliked in western Europe. Karl Rove himself said it would take generations for the US to repair its relations with the Arabs. I think he was right. So, despite what many here think, I really do think Bush is our worst president.
Stan writes, "The Vietnam War was awful, but it didn't have a lasting effect on our position in the world. The Vietnam War was awful, but it didn't have a lasting effect on our position in the world. "
The American people didn't trust their own government after Vietnam and Nixon. How is that not a lasting effect? There are people right now that don't trust our government and believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don't know that seems like a lasting effect to me.
I don't actually think Bush is the WORST president ever (barring an accidental nuclear launch or something in the next 7 months). James Buchanan's dithering while the union dissolved and Nixon's cynical continuation and escalation of a Vietnam war he knew was lost and utter corruption both, I think make them lower. LBJ, at least, had major domestic accomplishments.
But this doesn't really matter. Bush is an abject failure whose primary legacy will be starting a hideously destructive and destabilizing war of choice on false pretenses (and the fact that other people thought Saddam had WMDs has zero mitigating effect here). He is either an epic fool or a hideous liar, and probably a good deal of both. Whether he is marginally better or worse than other lousy presidents is academic.
I repeat, what strategic objective are we trying to achieve here? The surge is just a way of manufacturing reasons to stay in Iraq and salvage beshitted reputations, nothing more than that.
Terry Ann,
"Again people say Iraq is the "greatest foreign policy blunder in American history" and Bush is the "worst president ever," lose credibility with me."
Well, a lot of historians have just lost credibility with you:
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse.
but i guess they won't be writing the history books.
Oh, wait...
That's also for gruntled whatever, who was using the historian bullshit also.
Justin K, you might well be right. Shame Bush isn't running -
Bush 2008
"Better than Buchanan"
Terry Ann writes: "The American people didn't trust their own government after Vietnam and Nixon. How is that not a lasting effect?"
Um... do you know anything about Watergate, kid?
The lack of trust in the government after Nixon had very little to do with Vietnam, which lost much of its force as an issue after the draft was eliminated. You're confused.
James,
If you read the article you linked it said "unscientific" poll. And my goodness what kind of professional historians are rating a president before his second term is even done! We must live in an incredibly impatient society to want to label people and wars failures before they are even completed! What historians are saying NOW while Bush is STILL in office is meaningless in my opinion.
And to be honest I don't care about the "legacy" of any president. I do, however, want to our troops coming home to feel like they fought for a noble cause. Also, I do care that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan that it will be a better and more freer place for the Iraqi and Afghani people. That's all I care about! All the other is stuff is stupid.
Do you know what 'unscientific' actually means? Usually it means the pollster chose the people. Since it was professional historians opinions he/she sought, that would be unavoidable.
Unscientific doesn't mean wrong. On yet another fatuous distinction you then say 'what kind' - well, professional ones, who actually have a clue about history.
98% say he's a failure, 96% put him in the bottom quarter of Presidents. But now since you've lost this part of the argument, you don't care about the 'legacy', you say their opinion is 'meaningless', and change the argument from legacy....when the title of Ross's post was...McCain and the Bush Legacy.
I've been polite, but frankly, you are a fucking idiot.
"I do care that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan that it will be a better and more freer place for the Iraqi and Afghani people."
A question I often ask conservatives, and get little responses to, is this: What if the Iraqi and Afghani people have a different definition of freedom? What if they want sharia law? Would you consider them free? Would you say that maybe they don't want freedom? Or maybe they don't want freedom as you define it?
Terry Ann again: "I do, however, want to our troops coming home to feel like they fought for a noble cause. Also, I do care that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan that it will be a better and more freer place for the Iraqi and Afghani people. That's all I care about! All the other is stuff is stupid."
Yeah, stupid is certainly something you seem to grasp. "More freer." Ye gods!
Here's a clue, child. Vietnam was not a noble cause. The Iraq War is not a noble cause. The invasion of Afghanistan was meant to break the Taliban and Al Qaeda and capture bin Laden. None of those goals have been accomplished. There is no particular reason to think they will be.
In fact, the invasion of Iraq seriously undercut the goals in Afghanistan, and now international support for our efforts there has dwindled. This is just another reason to consider Dumbya the worst president ever, and Iraq the biggest foreign policy debacle ever.
Freddiemac,
Point blank: If they choose sharia law than that's not freedom.
Any other questions?
Freddiemac,
Sharia law is not freedom.
Any other questions?
James
No she's not, your rather rude though.
Historians know history takes some time to flush out. Events have not even unfolded yet.
A “poll” of what a bunch of contemporary academics think is not the judgment of history & a Presidents legacy.
If Iraq blossomed into the most stable, free, and prosperous democracy in the region…would your poll of historians matter? Would there views change? Would yours?
Since we are engaging in hypotheticals…
Consider this: this idiot Saddam attacked Iran and lost. Then, he next went on to invade Kuwait.
People were drawing analogies to Hitler and appeasement and the worry was what if he kept on going and invaded Saudi Arabia? To prevent that possibility we first set up Desert Shield before giving him ultimatums and then rolling him back from Kuwait.
And what was the biggest issue for Bin Laden? The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia which started with Desert Shield. During Desert Storm, remember, Saddam didn’t have any problems with lobbing scuds at the co-religionist (majority Sunni) Saudi Arabia.
So perhaps we acted prematurely, perhaps we should’ve just let him go on to invade Saudi Arabia. Then there would’ve been even more of a clear-cut reason to involve in Iraq War I. (And not just for the vast disruptions to the global economy that such an invasion would allow.) And we would’ve deprived Bin Laden of his main justification for his later despicable acts….(if we didn’t stay…)
I was a little older than Mr. Douthat when the first Gulf War went down. Being younger, and with other things on my mind, I easily went along with the climate of opinion for that war. At the time it seemed clear to me: “this country invaded, so get them out.” Now, the horrible events that have followed caused me to think the hypothetical scenario I outlined above.
I now _modestly_ take the point of neocons that the two Gulf wars are of a piece. Look at it this way:
We tend to associate WWII as a “good war.” But there most certainly wouldn’t have been that war without the first one. WWI seems to me like a ” bad war”, fought for no reason and evolving rapidly from one trivial event (ferdinand’s assassination) to conflict between major powers which had nothing to do with that event. Some historians call the period europe’s “second thirty year’s war” acknowledging how they are of a piece.
Similarly, stand that on its head and there is a tendency to see the first Gulf War as a “good war”: clear achievable objectives that were efficiently carried out with overwhelming international support in troops and in FUNDING. And then to see the second one as a unilateral act out of nowhere, with no plan and developing into a quagmire—a “bad war”.
Here’s where I break with the neocon’s in my interpretation: the two wars are not of a piece because of contradictions resulting in the second and not following the terms of the end of the war and no-fly zone, etc. etc. etc.
It is that in the time between the two wars the U.S. emerged as the unquestioned military power in the world with no effective check on its power. They are of a piece because the U.S. was just as strong, perhaps stronger, throughout the intrawar period.
When you have as large a military as we do relative to the rest of the world, well, there is going to be institutional pressures to use it. When you also have a “strong man” form of government as we have, where the constitutional power of “only Congress may declare wars” can be easily circumvented by an executive just sending in troops, well you’re going to see some wars, people.
And then you have a public in high anxiety after 9/11, a public who was not that informed and who sees jihadist al qaeda, secular iraq, Saudi Arabia as a bunch of arabs all together and the same, and an executive thrilled that they can use all this to ease us into this war.
People also overlook the so-called “Vietnam syndrome” in motivating our involvement in the Gulf War(s) to begin with. I’d say we’re clearly over that now!
JohnMcC brings up the fact that there was lack of planning in the Iraq War. There was probably a similar lack of planning for the first one, but an occupation is a much more intensive endeavor than just returning sovereignty to an invaded country and there are so many variables involved that you have to get it right. I’d argue it is probably near impossible to get that right. Instananalyst metions the disturbing of the balance of power wrt Iran, another factor.
Bottom line, Bush’s legacy is linked to his father’s and to McCain who will succeed him. Sure he is below average President because of the spending and tax cuts without spending cuts (in a time of war!), but his initial decision was conditioned on his father’s and as I mentioned above, he could’ve decided not to pursue the Surge or just straight pulled out and so we would’ve been even worse off and so his legacy worse.
It is just too early to see yet how big a strategic error Iraq war II (in isolation, if you will) and Gulf Wars (of a piece). But it doesn’t look good..
Gruntled wonders: "If Iraq blossomed into the most stable, free, and prosperous democracy in the region…would your poll of historians matter? Would there views change? Would yours?"
I guess German historians will now have to start regarding WW2 as a success because in the long run Germany has prospered and is a successful democracy.
That is, they will if they scoop out their brains and replace them with whatever gummy substance Gruntled and Terry Ann keep inside their skulls.
Moe,
I'm sure German historians conclude the Allied forces (including America) going in and taking out the Nazis was a good thing. What's your point???
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former high level CIA analyst of the Middle East in an article A New Middle East After All, sums up Bush's accomplishment as follows:
An uneasy and healthy tension now exists between rhetoric and reality, guaranteeing that Americans will continue to debate what has gone wrong and right in the Muslim Middle East. Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region's murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield. Sanctions, cruise missiles shot at rock huts and empty intelligence-service buildings, and close liaison relationships with foreign internal-security services were not enough. If the United States is brutally struck again by holy warriors, President Bush will seem prescient and wise--about the need for reform in the Middle East's autocracies, about the strategic shortsightedness and immorality of pre-9/11 American foreign policy toward Muslims, and about the imperative to use ugly tactics against mass-casualty terrorists. Given the forces arrayed against him, his administration's failures, and his own limitations, these are achievements even Ronald Reagan would envy.
Anyone who reads Gerecht is aware that he has been severely critical of some of the Bush administration policy and strategy errors in Iraq.
What I find most curious about the argument from those, like Peter, who say we should wait and see where Iraq stands in the future before pronouncing judgment on the decision to go to war, is how antithetical such an argument is to the long-standing and morally profound criticisms conservatives put forth of international communism throughout the Cold War. The appalling dictum of "breaking some eggs to get the omelet", i.e. a utopian future of some sort, was rightly denounced by both liberals and conservatives as an immoral, anti-humanistic, and anti-individualistic ideology. Now, however, Peter claims that there is a good possibility that Iraq will have a fine future, so let's shake the President's hand for his foresight and courage. What about the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, who have died - either directly or indirectly - due to U.S actions? What about the millions who have been displaced? Sacrifices to the greater good I guess. Lenin has entered the building and he is wearing the garb of Burke.
Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!!!
You have just witnessed the greatest political campaign fight in American history. One for the textbooks, and the history books. Hillary Clinton fought her heart out against all odds to win for all of the American people . While at the same time doing her best to prepare Sen. Barack Obama to win in November if he was the nominee. STUNNING!!! WELL DONE HILLARY CLINTON. WELL DONE! Your AMAZING! :-)
Sen. Obama could not have had a better opponent than Hillary Clinton. Nor could he have had a better opponent to prepare him for the battle royal to come against John McCain and the Republicans ahead of the November elections. Hillary Clinton was like a big Mama cat determined to teach her kitten how to hunt, and hang with the big dogs for the fights ahead.
And how about Bill Clinton, Chelsea, and th whole Clinton team. They were magnificent. They really showed their metal. BRAVO! TEAM CLINTON... BRAVO!
And how about YOU! my fellow Americans. I'm so proud of you. And proud to be one of you. You showed what you are made of. And what makes America so great. You never gave up on your Champion Hillary Clinton. Time, and time again you eagerly waited your turn to vote for Hillary Clinton. To pick her up and pass her along down the line to the rest of your fellow Americans.
You never gave up on her. Just as Hillary Clinton never gave up on you. No matter how many times they counted her out. No matter how many times they brutally knocked her down. You knew she would get back up. And you were ready to support her when she did. AMERICA LOVES A FIGHTER. AMERICA UNDERSTANDS A FIGHTER. AMERICA IS A FIGHTER. I'M PROUD OF YOU AMERICA!
Hillary said she would accept the VP spot on the ticket if ask. And I am thrilled to hear that. I think it would be crazy not to take her up on that offer. You could not have a better VP than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is Sen. Obama's best chance of winning the Whitehouse in November. And it is essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse.
The American people are in a very desperate condition now. George Bush has wrecked America, and much of the world.
YOU MADE US VERY PROUD HILLARY CLINTON! :-)
WE LOVE YOU...
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. I really liked Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Minnesota. I think he just maybe ready now for the Bush Republican attack machine, dirty tricks, and vote fraud machine. :-)
Chuck Darwin says: "What I find most curious about the argument from those, like Peter, who say we should wait and see where Iraq stands in the future before pronouncing judgment on the decision to go to war, is how antithetical such an argument is to the long-standing and morally profound criticisms conservatives put forth of international communism throughout the Cold War."
I like how the morons think 5+ years of a silly-ass war isn't long enough to declare it a failure, but they think a month or so of diminished casualties is enough to declare the war IS WORKING!
I realize they're a mob of hopeless lemming-like morons, but to miss a basic contradiction like that is stunning.
I seem to remember that in 2001 {the begining of all of this)we were looking for a guy named Osama Bin Laden. Why are we attacking Iraq if he's in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Iraq doesn't have weapons of Mass distruction. Bush clearly lied about that and deserves impeachment. And, don't give me that crap about the U.S. needing the oil.
I don't know about you but I would rather not have gass in my car then to have it and know that someone had to die for me to get it. I hope that some of you might consider this. If it was Iraq that had the ability to invade our country, change our system of government, and force their religion on our people, would it be fair of them to do so just because they can? Would it be right for them to invade us if there were some commodity to be had by doing so? Say, oil, or food, or something. WAR IS NEVER A GOOD DECISION BECAUSE PEOPLE DIE IN THEM. And, that should be the end of it. Maybe, one day the world will become civilized enough to understand this. Untill then, I'll have to pull a quote from the great George Carlin by saying we will just continue to be semi-civilized APES with baseball caps and automatic weapons.
Let's be clear about the Left's investment in Failure.
Remember one thing. The Democrats are arguing 2003 precisely because Petraeus and Odierno (with a lot of help from Rice and Gates) have succeeded spectacularly in Iraq.
The fruit of the poisoned tree argument doesn't help with a voting public that asks one question: "where do we go from here". If you want to argue 2003, go right ahead. John McCain will talk right past you, and I suspect he will succeed.
Right now, Obama is talking failure in the face of American military success. There is a reason Obama hasn't been to Iraq since January of 2006: a Closed Mind is, after all, a Terrible thing to Have. Think of Obama as Bush's alter ego-as set in his ways and his convictions as GW is in his, and unwilling to alter his convictions.
The Left made a historic bet against the U.S. Army and Marine Corps; they did so because of the legacy of Vietnam. Barack's so called "judgement" left him high and dry, and it turned out that Bush made the right call when Obama would have left Iraq to the Qaedists and the Iranians.
Because Bush held his nerve when others about him, such as Obama, lost theirs, Al Qaeda in Iraq has almost been destroyed and the Iranians turned back. History, which is pitiless and merciless, will savage the Democrats in the future: it only loves winners of wars. It frowns on losers.
History doesn't care about 2003. It only cares about 2008. It only cares who wins. The history of warfare is, in the end, about who wins it. In the most decisive action of his Presidency, the decision to listen to Petraeus, Gates, Rice, and Odierno, and buy into the concept of the Surge, Bush got that Big Concept.
Liberals and Leftists still don't get that to wage war is to win it. That's why they're lost in pointless arguments about 2003.
There is a reason Democrats haven't won a war since 1950.
"Liberals and Leftists still don't get that to wage war is to win it. That's why they're lost in pointless arguments about 2003."
Dear Section9, I think a war is won when you gain more from the war than you lose. For example, Paraguay won the Chaco War it fought with Bolivia in the 30's in the sense that it eventually gained more of a disputed territory than Bolivia did. But, and this is a big but, it suffered 43,000 casualties during the war. That's the equivalent of about 15 million casualties for a country with the population of the present day United States. Did Paraguay really win its war? I realize that deciding what counts in terms of winning and losing is difficult. But I can't see any scenario in which the Iraq War ends in victory for the US, no matter how you define victory.
The opponents of the Iraq War who carried the most weight with me were James Baker, William Odom, and Brent Scowcroft, all of them conservative realists. They weighed pluses and minuses, and decided the war was a loser. I wish Bush had listened to them or to his capable but unfortunately wimpish Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Instead, alas, he listened to people like you.
Stan, you miss section9's point. In October 2002 the Congress decisively passed a formal resolution authorizing the president to fight the war in Iraq.
One may of course debate the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, though once a war starts the idea is to prosecute it fully and win it. The liberals [and isolationist conservatives] starting with the Vietnam war take the view that it is legitimate to oppose and try to defeat the prosecution of the war.
Ryan Crocker remarked recently that in the long rum America will be judged more by the way we exit the war than the way we started it. That is why even Obama would probably not be able to fulfill his pledge to fully exit the war in sixteen months without regard to conditions on the ground. Most American people apart from the hard left do not like to lose wars.
I understand section9's point as well as you do. There is no doubt that a segment of the liberal movement in the US turned against optional wars because of the Vietnam War. Yet every important Democratic politician I know of, including Obama, supported the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they still support it. Furthermore, the group of conservatives I mentioned, Baker, Odom, and Scowcroft, are (or were, since Odom just died) far from being isolationist. Neither is Colin Powell, who opposed the Iraq War (feebly ) from inside the administration. And I have to say that your view that it is illegitimate to oppose and try to defeat the prosecution of a war is absurd. Who gave you the right to decide what's legitimate? If Obama opposes the Iraq War and McCain supports it, does that make McCain a better American? If this is what you think, you're treading on dangerous ground.
I repeat, what strategic objective are we trying to meet in Iraq? Our lie-based war has produced civil war, ethnic cleansing, a sectarian puppet gov't, increased Iranian influence in the region, increased fighting between Turkey and Kurdish rebels, higher oil prices, regional destabilization, shattered American credibility, an overstretched military, massive refugee flows, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. And what have we gotten out of it? An indefinite occupation that serves no one's interest.
Tell me again who's invested in failure section9. This failure is all the GOP's got left to believe in.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Sad. It's like a brain-damaged dog with an imaginary bone.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 11:53 AM