The State of Bush's legacy
James Forsyth 3:00pm
There could be no keener testament to George W. Bush’s lame duck status than the fact that the morning shows here in America this morning are more interested in the Florida primary than the State of the Union. When not even the president’s annual address to both branches of Congress can drive the news agenda then the president has lost even the power of the bully pulpit.
It is to Bush’s credit that he did not attempt to assert his relevance through a series of dramatic statements. Instead, he concentrated on inching his agenda forward. He also deserves praise for his defence of free trade despite the increasingly protectionist mood of the country.
The Bush presidency will forever be defined by 9/11 and Bush’s response to it. How successful that has been is unclear at the moment. If Iraq is turned round, it will look visionary and Bush will go down as another Truman who defined America’s response to a new threat. However, if Iraqi leaders fail to capitalise on the space created by the success of the surge or American troops are withdrawn too soon the Bush presidency will go down as one of the worst in American history. The tragedy is that Bush’s essential diagnosis of the problem—that closed societies in the Middle East were breeding grounds for extremism—was correct. The problems have come with the tactical implementation of the strategy to reverse this. The danger is that is Bush is seen to have failed it will discredit what remains an essentially correct understanding of the nature of the threat.
Previous
Tom
January 29th, 2008 3:40pm Report this commentPity then that the three biggest breeding grounds (Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are nominally US allies. The former receive many billions in aid and the latter is a major destination for US military hardware.
TGF UKIP
January 29th, 2008 6:02pm Report this commentI have long maintained that the President Bush has most in common with was Truman. Both were derided from the start by the smart-arse Press, one as the Missouri Haberdasher and the other as the Texas Cowboy. Both were easily able to take major decisions and both had huge setbacks (the American headlong flight down the Korean Peninsula) and both had cause to be grateful to hugely able generals, Macarthur and Petraeus. Both left office mocked and derided (Truman to the extent he could not have run again even though he was eligible) and just as S.Korea massively benefited from the intervention and Truman's endurance so will Iraq in the longer term owe a debt of gratitude to the US and George W. However, being a Republican and not a Democrat it will be a lot harder for the media and the academics, especially in the UK, to bring themselves to lionise Bush in the same way they have Truman. George W though will be much more kindly treated by history than by the pygmies of the present.
HalcyonDays
January 29th, 2008 6:04pm Report this commentIn addition to those three "allies", you can also add as breeding grounds Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Indonesia, Philippines, perhaps Turkey - oh, and maybe also Germany and the UK.
Arthur
January 29th, 2008 11:28pm Report this commentI was struck by the pragmatic, businesslike tone of the Address; perhaps the best final-year tone possible. Bush did not, of course, choose 9/11, he just happened to be the incumbent - a day that would have imposed a tremendous burden on any leader. He did, however, define the precise nature - or indeed lack thereof - of the response (Afghanistan evidence solid and aim clear, Iraq evidence and aim rather less so, and his administration initially ignored its own military advisers as well). Furthermore, he seems to have alienated large parts of the American public and engendered an extreme degree of polarisation as regards US, and indeed European (Netherlands in this case), public discourse. As the main article suggests, Bush's security-related diagnosis, insofar as it relates to a need for greater transparency and accountability in governance, is essentially correct: the more of both the better. His narrowness of the diagnosis, however, cannot be overlooked. Security, alongside "hard" force where necessary, is also about the "soft" cultivation of genuine engagement and sincere allies. It's also about making clear that everyone can have a meaningful stake as participants (rather than onlookers) of a stable and sustainable world order. In this sense, I would argue that the greatest war of my generation has to do with global poverty, not international terrorism as such. The symptoms have to be fought, to be sure, but the causes must also be crushed.
Back to top