Redeeming Dubya (III)

While I'm on the subject of Bush's possible rehabilitation, I should link to this Jonathan Rauch piece from October of last year, in which he argued that one way to judge a President is by how long it takes his successors to unwind his mistakes. In the current Administration's case, he suggested that "Bush’s successors will have one useful ally: Bush himself," since on at least some fronts - most notably Iraq - the President has attempted to be a "self-unwinder."

Now obviously a record of unwinding one's own mistakes is rather different from a record of success, and if Bush does succeed - as seems increasingly plausible - in finally delivering a fragile-but-improving situation in Iraq to his successor, that won't be an achievement that vindicates the initial decision to invade. But provisionally, at least, it's worth noting that way that Bush has attempted to unwind himself on Iraq has been more impressive, and provided more grist for a potential rehabilitation, than a simple volte-face would have. If Bush had taken the Baker-Hamilton Commission's advice, for instance, and the security situation had gradually improved thereafter, the obvious historical narrative would have been that Bush led America into a disaster, and then had to turn things over to the grown-ups and let them lead us out. But by instead choosing a course-correction - the Surge - that had very little institutional support within American political circles, Bush assumed ownership of subsequent events in a way that most politicians seeking to undo their blunders don't have the opportunity to do. And should Iraq reach some sort of democratic stability over the long run, it's very easy to see how Bush's decision to double down rather than pulling out could become one of the high points of a larger narrative that paints him as a visionary.

Again, to emphasize, I wouldn't agree with this narrative, not least because I think the standards for success in a war of choice (or a war of pre-emption, or however you want to describe our decision to invade Iraq) have to be considerably more stringent than the standards for success in a war of survival or self-defense - and finally getting to some sort of modest stability in post-Saddam Iraq (which is by no means assured) after four years of carnage and tens of thousands of deaths doesn't pass muster on this count. So when Victor Davis Hanson, for instance, argues that our blunders in this conflict have parallels in previous American wars, I think what's missing from his argument is an acknowledgment that Iraq has to be judged differently from World War II or Korea because our grounds for going to war in this case were considerably weaker.

But based on how American history tends to end up being written, I wouldn't be all that surprised to wake up in 2035 and find that Hanson's point of view, rather than mine, ended up carrying the day.

Photo by the World Economic Forum used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Regarding The Dubya Redemption: Hey, good luck with that.

Posted by Objective Reality | June 3, 2008 7:16 PM

Victor Davis Handjob hasn't been right about a single thing having to do with Iraq. I'm not sure why anyone, anywhere pays any attention to the sociopathic bastard anymore.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 3, 2008 7:55 PM

Victor Davis HANDJOB! Moe is a comic genius!

Posted by MuhammadLuLuandGaia | June 3, 2008 11:33 PM

The creatures outside looked from Handjob to Moe, and from Moe to Handjob, and from Handjob to Moe again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Posted by MoeCheneyAndOrwell | June 4, 2008 12:39 AM

Handjob is the one with the adult cystic acne.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 3:26 AM

Give it up Ross, it's not possible to redeem someone who is a lying, incompetent moron.

All presidents have been one of the three, a lot have been two, but it takes real personality to be all three.

'paint him as a visionary'. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Posted by James | June 4, 2008 5:22 AM

I'm still trying to figure out how Mr. @$$hat conned the Atlantic into paying for this crap. Guess that's why I don't subscribe anymore.

Posted by huh | June 4, 2008 9:55 AM

You're an idiot, just like Bush.

Posted by Bradley | June 4, 2008 9:59 AM

Iraq isn't like WWII, I can go along with that, especially WWII against the Japanese.

But isn't it fairly similar to Korea, except that American interests were more at stake in Iraq considering the impact that Iraq's oil had on the world's economy? In Korea, the US was trying to protect a (perhaps artificial) border created between North and South Korea and to resist the aggression of a border state. In Iraq, the US was trying to enforce the terms of a settlement of a previous war to resist the aggression of a border state.

Maybe neither conflict was wise or justified, but they seem awfully similar. (Except the movies and TV resulting from the Korean War were far superior.)

Posted by Marc | June 4, 2008 10:45 AM

It amazes me how stubbornly and categorically folks can hate Bush. Is it not possible, as Ross is suggesting, to even imagine a somewhat functional Iraq? That for so many it is not , I suppose, is just another indictment of the human condition, equivalent to the myopia that led so many to suppose the invasion would be a cakewalk.

What I hate about the the spittle-spewing, foot-stomping haters is that they seem to believe that hope for a better Iraq - if it involves any speck of U.S. participation - is immoral.

Posted by Andy | June 4, 2008 10:47 AM

I try not to predict how history will judge a president. I think things change quickly. Who would have thought years ago that Bush would have such low approval ratings now? I just hope the history books will be truthful and balanced about this president. That's all I ask for.

Posted by Terry Ann | June 4, 2008 10:56 AM

Terry Ann,

Who would have thought years ago? A lot of people.
Balanced? You mean on one hand we was an idiot, on the other he was also a crook.

truthful and balanced is pretty close to Fox's claim to the truth also.

And Andy - wanting Iraq to be a success is not what is being debated. Put the strawman out to frighten the children.

If Iraq is fixed, it is only because some chump broke it in the first place. If US Democracy is fixed by the next President, how does that validate the one who broke it?

Posted by James | June 4, 2008 11:09 AM

James,

All I'm asking is for the facts and context, whether they reflect favorably or poorly. My only point is that we don't know ten or fifteen years from now what we will think of the past eight years.

Posted by Terry Ann | June 4, 2008 11:20 AM

Andy: what I hate about the the spittle-spewing, foot-stomping bush defenders is their ability to turn every argument against bush as spittle-spewing foot-stomping bush hate.

Sometimes it is what it is. Take off the blinders.

Ross: If Iraq is fine in 2035 it will have nothing to do with us invading in 2003.

Terry Ann: like you all I want is the truth. But it is becoming painfully obvious that the more we learn the worse bush looks. History will look less kindly on bush than he is seen now.

Posted by Rob | June 4, 2008 12:20 PM

I personally credit Bush with accidentally exposing the faultlines in the Republican coalition (as a small government conservative/libertarian with no love lost for either Huckabee-types or Wolfowitz-types, I'm still not sure whether this is good or not) and view him as a fiscal idiot and armchair Wilsonian fool, overwhelmed with and unprepared for the magnitude of his job.

However, this thesis of a revisionist Bush rehabilitation is eminently possible, though probably not likely.

If Iraq soon embraces peaceful, Liberal Democracy and, subsequently, modernity (and I still think the Neoconservatives have mixed up causality with these two phenomena), it will be quite difficult for historians to condemn Bush's lazy, half-baked, absentee-landlord methods when faced with the stone cold reality of his results.

Argument's like Rob's:

If Iraq is fine in 2035 it will have nothing to do with us invading in 2003.

will just be tough historical argument to make, since they require a myopic focus on the beginning and middle of the story in concert with an absolute dismissal of, or detachment from, the last chapter (nigh-unmakeable, actually).

Then again, my own conditional:

if Iraq soon embraces peaceful, Liberal Democracy and, subsequently, modernity

contains a pretty big "if," to say the least.

Posted by Shinyk | June 4, 2008 4:19 PM

>"You're an idiot, just like Bush."

Comments like this add nothing to the discussion. As a Goldwater conservative, I wholeheartedly agree that this administration has been an unequivocal disaster for our country. And for those of us that have lived through it, no matter what our political colors - we will always remember the atrocious response from FEMA in the wake of hurricane Katrina; we will always remember the bungling of the reconstruction of Iraq, most notably the incompetence and cronyism of CPA. Ideologically, there are other reason why I've strongly disliked this presidency, from their blatant disregard of the Geneva convention to their bloated domestic spending.

In my opinion, Ross's exercise is not necessarily one to try to think about the Bush administration differently, but rather to think about HISTORY is a different light. History is notoriously subjective, and Ross is right that it tends to be kinder to the idealists. Teddy Roosevelt was a war-monger and Wilson was a fool, but strangely historians tend to put both in the upper echelon of presidents. At the end of his presidency, Truman has pathetic, Bush-esque approval levels.

I think it is entirely possible that history will be kind to the Bush presidency, but this should not be mistaken as good in any sense. Indeed, future presidents would do well to learn about the failures of the Bush administration, in order to prevent the same mistakes in the future. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that they will not, and there will be more idealistic presidents who think they can "transform" the middle east and other areas of the world through the sheer force of will of military power.

I think Ross's article should a harbinger more than anything else. It should be a warning - a warning that says, "never forget".

Posted by Chris | June 4, 2008 10:50 PM

Chris writes: "As a Goldwater conservative, I wholeheartedly agree that this administration has been an unequivocal disaster for our country. And for those of us that have lived through it, no matter what our political colors - we will always remember the atrocious response from FEMA in the wake of hurricane Katrina; we will always remember the bungling of the reconstruction of Iraq, most notably the incompetence and cronyism of CPA. Ideologically, there are other reason why I've strongly disliked this presidency, from their blatant disregard of the Geneva convention to their bloated domestic spending."

As a Mark Twain/Kurt Vonnegut progressive, I agree with all of this - though the "bloated domestic spending" would bother me less if the bastards had bothered to pay for it.

"History is notoriously subjective, and Ross is right that it tends to be kinder to the idealists. Teddy Roosevelt was a war-monger and Wilson was a fool, but strangely historians tend to put both in the upper echelon of presidents. At the end of his presidency, Truman has pathetic, Bush-esque approval levels."

I disagree in that I don't really believe Dumbya is an "idealist." I think he's an arrogant thug and a bully with few redeeming qualities.

I'd say Jimmy Carter was an actual idealist, but he was not a successful president by any measure - and Dumbya has been worse across the board.

I think historians - for the most part - look at Wilson and TR and Truman as presidents who - despite their failings - made decisions that increased the relative power and influence of the US in the world. It's hard to see how Dumbya gets to that point, isn't it?

"I think Ross's article should a harbinger more than anything else. It should be a warning - a warning that says, "never forget"."

Such warnings are always forgotten.

In 1986 I was doing some substitute teaching and I took over the classes of a history teacher who was out long term. He taught an honors level course for juniors in American history - and I forget the immediate context, but I brought up Watergate as a comparison point to some past scandal or another.

Not a kid in the class had any idea what I was talking about.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 11:38 PM