President George W Bush's place in history

[a_majoor]

Historiography follows trends of the time it was written, rather than the time it actually purports to study, so we know future historians will report this Presidency in different lights. You only have to read Lord Black's biographies of FDR and Richard M Nixon, or Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin to realize that opinions change and evolve.

Salim Mansur points out one aspect of George W Bush's presidency which will fully engage historians for centuries to come in this article:

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/01/12/pf-4769244.html

Middle East indebted to Bush
By SALIM MANSUR

This week's journey of U.S. President George W. Bush to the Middle East -- the itinerary beginning with Israel includes visits to the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt -- is greatly significant and yet, in keeping with his temper, a low-keyed affair as the last remaining months of his presidency unfold.

We likely can surmise there is one more visit to the region still to be made by Bush.

This will be a visit to Baghdad with an address to Iraq's democratically elected parliament before Bush takes leave from the White House for his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

When Bush stepped into the Oval Office -- a long time ago now it seems on that cold January morning in 2001 -- the Arab-Muslim world was furthest from his mind as it was from the minds of most Americans.

But the malignancy of the Middle East, ignored by the West and the previous occupants of the White House, would strike New York City, bringing the Arab-Muslim world's politics of fanatical hate, deep-seated resentment and a mountain of grievances to the shores of the United States.

The Arabs had squandered the 20th century just as they slept through much of the previous four centuries, while the West created a whole new world of science and democracy.

The independence won for the Arabs from the rule of the Ottoman Turks by Britain and France at the end of the First World War eventually became a cruel mockery with a people -- despite the resources and goodwill available -- incapable of lifting themselves up from the broken ruins of their tribal culture.

This is the root cause of Arab failure, and instead of embracing the modern world by reforming its culture the Arab political class has indulged in blaming others, most particularly Jews and Israel.

George Bush could have remained indifferent to the Arab-Muslim world's malignancy, mouthing pieties as members of the ever fashionable lib-left political class in the West endlessly does, while watching the Arabs sink deeper into the political squalor of their making.

Instead, Bush struck directly at the most rotten core of the Middle East -- Iraq, the land of two rivers, choked to death by the vilest of Arab tyrants in recent memory, Saddam Hussein -- to give the Arabs an opportunity one more time to make a better future.

Regime change in Baghdad has brought a new Iraq to emerge with American support despite the fanatical opposition of the most backward tribal warriors of the Arab-Muslim world.

Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- now bear responsibility that comes with freedom to write a new history for Arabs as, for instance, the far more populous and ethnically diverse people of India are doing.

FROZEN IN HYPOCRISY

The Arab leaders greeting Bush remain frozen in their hypocrisy, unable to say publicly what they will say privately, being relieved in knowing the United States remains committed to maintaining order and security in the Persian Gulf region.

But free Iraq looms large in the capitals of the Arab states, and if Iraqis keep progressing in freedom their example will be an irresistible attraction for the Arab-Muslim world spread between the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf.

A democratic Iraq is George Bush's formidable legacy, and the Arabs will be talking about him long after his contemporary critics bite the dust and are forgotten.

 

[Infanteer]

A little early to make that call....

 

[vonGarvin]

I wouldn't say it's too early.  Mr. Mansur makes some good points.

Regime change in Baghdad has brought a new Iraq to emerge with American support despite the fanatical opposition of the most backward tribal warriors of the Arab-Muslim world.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to call Mr. Bush the greatest president the US has ever had, nor would I say that he has managed the war in Iraq well; however, look at the recent news out of Iraq.  Sunnis and Shias are joining the US against the "other" invaders: Al Qaeda in Iraq.  I guess they realise that the US may be the lesser of two evils (put pessimistically).  As well, the economy of Iraq would do much better off trading with the West vice with Al Qaeda.  (if you exclude Madrassas and bomb making factories)

 

[geo]

History written in the US:  George W Bush is a good christian and the president of Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist radical

History written in Iran:  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a good muslim and the president of the USA is a christian fundamentalist radical.

 

[Flip]

Geo,

That's today's politically correct snapshot.

Give it a decade or a generation - I think long term history will
be more charitable than the current tide.

As a Canadian, I like George and I know most Canadians
misunderestimate him. 

 

[Bane]

        I don't know about 'history', but Americans tend to vote and respond, rightly so, to domestic issues.  The G.W. Whitehouse has been a disaster on the domestic side and there is not happy hyper-ideological principle to point to in his domestic governance.  As such, I expect that in the United States he will be remembered very poorly for a very long time.  If, as Salim Mansur says, the invasion of Iraq ushers in a period of democatization and modernization for the middle east and the U.S. is able to weather the serious fiscal challenges of the near to mid term, then perhaps his reputation will be better than it is today.  Which isn't saying much.  Mr. Mansur is also a self described neocon and has worked for a number of right-leaning institutions. It is also common for academics to bark loudly for attention from time to time....

 

[Flip]

It is also common for academics to bark loudly for attention from time to time....

And that's whats going on now.  A new cycle of electioneering has started.
Thing won't be stable again for a long time.
As such, I wouldn't say much written in the short term is relevent in the long term.

 

[a_majoor]

Bane is perhaps proving my point, current attitudes are colouring the debate, who is to say what people will be saying or writing in 2020, 2075 or 2100. I can hope to see the 2111 centenary articles about the response to the 9/11 attacks, now that will be interesting.

President Lincoln was a lightning rod in his own lifetime, with various factions against his prosecuting the war at all, and others thinking he was not prosecuting it vigorously enough. Some Neo-Cons today would claim his expansion and centralization of government powers to prosecute the war was ultimately a bad thing, converting "These United States" into the singular Union ("The United States").

While FDR is often praised for his handling of the Great Depression and World War Two, dissenting opinions can be found against FDR, who modeled much of the "New Deal" after Fascist Italy and who's actions prolonged the Great Depression. Truman was pretty much despised by the end of his term, and his policy of global containment and "Give 'em hell Harry" style only became great accomplishments and memorable long after he left office.

Incidentally, ad hominem attacks against academics and others do little to advance the argument, and my own dealings with Dr. Mansur are always cordial, regardless of how much we may agree or disagree on a topic.

 

[tomahawk6]

Bush has been a pretty good wartime President.He got major tax cuts through the Congress which have helped the economy to this point. He was on the wrong side of illegal immigration. Domestic spending was too much like a democrat and may have cost him majorities in the House and Senate. Bottom line he will be judge by the success or failure in the war on terror. If some of you fault Bush for his faith, then you will be unnerved if Huckabee gets into office.

 

[Bane]

        Thucydides, I think you're right about contemporary views shaping debates.  My main point was that over time Americans have emphasized the importance of domestic vs. international criteria for success.  But you are correct, 100 years from now, who knows.
      As for attacks; I did call Mr. Mansur a neo-conservative, a term that he uses to describe himself...I can hardly be accused of attacking the man on the basis of this comment.  This is also important information to know for someone trying to assess the article.  One might say:  "Ah, this makes sense.  On the basis of poor current performance of these ideological principles that this group holds, I think this article is an attempt to alter the perspective on the end game status so as to package the current period as the 'hard time before the pay off'.  I think this gentleman is making this claim in the hopes that his ideological bent will not fall into as much disfavor as it would otherwise."  This is one possible conclusion to arrive at that one could not have arrived at prior to learning of the authors ideological bent.  If I am wrong about his right-leaning credentials, then I sincerely apologize. I have no desire to spread falsehoods about anyone at all.
      On the issue of academics 'barking loudly'; the worst sin for an academic is irrelevancy, especially in political science.  This is a blanket statement on the discipline, not on Mr. Mansur.  If I went to Western I'm sure I'd have taken his class or classes and I'm sure we'd have gotten on fine. 

 

[vonGarvin]

If some of you fault Bush for his faith, then you will be unnerved if Huckabee gets into office.

From my own perspective, I haven't really noticed him wearing his faith on his sleeve, as it were.  Not to a great extent, anyway.  I do, however, note that many of his more outspoken critics have "attacked" him for being Christian.  If I recall, there was at one point criticism of him via his brother, who is Roman Catholic (GW isn't).

 

[Jammer]

I think history might see GW as a President who was ahead of his time. By that I mean he really wasn't ready to tackle the problems of a country who has just seen eight years of a wildly popular Bill Clinton and an entrenchment of Democratic party ideals. There were great strides taken during those years to bring more of a social compact into the American psyche where the less affluent and minorities could see themselves getting ahead in life. Illegal Immigration was much less of an issue (still doesn't make it right), and there wasn't (according to CIA Intelligence Estimates), an overt threat to the US.
GW and his band took advantage of several International incidents during the Clinton years during his run for the White House to instill fear into the Republican hard cores which would naturally bleed into the Democrat rightists thus creating the conditions for a still questionable win in 2000.
GW was essentially adrift for eight months Domestically and Internationally until Sept 11th. from there on until today his senior advisors and Cabinet members have been in charge, and foreign policy became the focus. A Pax Americana by force if you will was the end state and legacy that GW aspired to.
Don Rumsfeld retired (was removed)  because he had a temper tantrum, Colin Powell retired (was removed), because he had scruples. The VP and Condie Rice are really the brains behind the operation and now that there is no possibilty for a positive legacy (Jean Cretien style), the Middle East Peace Process is seen as a laudable goal for a lame duck Peasident in the twilight.

Just throwin' it out there

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not really concerned how the world writes him up, or what he has or hasn't done. I just like the guy for some reason.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?
He has made tax cuts while increasing spending, the trade and bidget deficits are out of control.

I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.

 

[Flip]

What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?
He has made tax cuts while increasing spending, the trade and bidget deficits are out of control.

I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.

All of that is unfair nonsense. There are other forces at work that have influence other than one
particular president.  I think you are buying the Dems line.

 

[time expired]

FAC.LIB.Crap!!! The Democrat Presidents since WW2 have done more
damage to the US and the world than George Bush could have done
even if he served 2 more terms.Lets start with Harry S. Truman,he
was the one who unleashed the atomic bomb upon the world,moving
right along lets look at Kennedy authorised an unauthorised invasion of
Cuba which, as you may know, almost led to WW3.Then we have the
biggest disaster the US has suffered as a President, Johnson, this man
through his indecisiveness and criminal incompetence was responsible
for the deaths of 82,000 Americans and untold numbers of Asians and
left the US in such a depressed state that it took a decade to recover
from.I almost forgot the peanut farmer,Carter,his claim to fame is
that he gutted the CIA,all in the interest of his rose coloured view
of world politics and his liberal agenda.He also taught the Iranians
that they could kick Uncle Sams a§$ with little fear of retribution.
  I will leave it at that and simply say that IMHO  George W. Bush could
be very well be judged as the President who recognised the threat and
single mindedly opposed it in spite of public and world opinion,and in
doing so made himself the most unpopular President ever.
                                Regards

 

[Edward Campbell]

FAC.LIB.Crap!!! The Democrat Presidents since WW2 have done more
damage to the US and the world than George Bush could have done
even if he served 2 more terms.Lets start with Harry S. Truman,he
was the one who unleashed the atomic bomb upon the world,moving
right along lets look at Kennedy authorised an unauthorised invasion of
Cuba which, as you may know, almost led to WW3.Then we have the
biggest disaster the US has suffered as a President, Johnson, this man
through his indecisiveness and criminal incompetence was responsible
for the deaths of 82,000 Americans and untold numbers of Asians and
left the US in such a depressed state that it took a decade to recover
from.I almost forgot the peanut farmer,Carter,his claim to fame is
that he gutted the CIA,all in the interest of his rose coloured view
of world politics and his liberal agenda.He also taught the Iranians
that they could kick Uncle Sams a§$ with little fear of retribution.
  I will leave it at that and simply say that IMHO  George W. Bush could
be very well be judged as the President who recognised the threat and
single mindedly opposed it in spite of public and world opinion,and in
doing so made himself the most unpopular President ever.
                                Regards

With respect:

Harry Truman inherited the atomic bomb on the eve of its first scheduled use. He had been kept completely "out of the loop" and he, Stimson and Marshall all confirm that first he ever heard of the thing was when Stimson bought him the "release" form to sign. Saying he "unleashed" the weapon is a bit much. Further, in my opinion, the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely justified and entirely moral; there is nothing inherently "wrong" with nuclear weapons - only with the causes for which they might be used next time.

Lydon B Johnson inherited the Vietnam war - from JFK who, in his turn, inherited a military training mission from Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Kennedy expanded the war - against the best available strategic advice.

Historians can begin to assess Bush and his accomplishments (or otherwise) in a fair manner in about 35 to 75 years - when more of the documentation is declassified. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

By that I mean he really wasn't ready to tackle the problems of a country who has just seen eight years of a wildly popular Bill Clinton and an entrenchment of Democratic party ideals.

Even in his re-election Clinton couldn't manage 50% of the popular vote!  He was only 'wildly popular' among the (predominantly Democratic) media, because he: (a) won; and, (b) was a Democrat.  His policies were generally pretty far to the Republican side of Democratic party ideals (which is probably why he won).

What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?

Carter

I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.

Post-WW2?  Carter, in a landslide ...

He also taught the Iranians
that they could kick Uncle Sams a§$ with little fear of retribution.

Which, along with a few other incidents (Beirut, Somalia, et.al.,) created [hijack] a belief in much of the world that America did not need to be defeated in war, but  rather just wounded, and it would withdraw: which led directly to 9/11 and subsequent events. [/hijack]

 

[Flip]

Hmmm,
No one yet has mentioned that Nixon was no peach either.

And of course Clinton's inability to deal with AQ at the outset.

GWB worst since WW2?

There's enough blame to go around.... ;D

 

[time expired]

FLIP,very interesting that you brought Tricky Dicky into the discusion,
President Nixon was a very good example of the superiority of
Republican presidency particularly in foreign affairs.Nixon's visit
to China went a long way to easing tensions in the area and he also
temporarily warmed the atmosphere in the Cold war by his engagement
with the Russian leadership. Incidentally there is some evidence coming
to light that Nixon ,due to his concentration on his foreign affairs,may
not have known anything about Watergate and was therefore wrongfully
impeached.
E.R.Cambell,you may have noticed that I made no judgemental statement
about the use of the A bomb,IMO it was fully justified,I merely wanted
to bring to FAC.LIB.s,judging by his empty profile probably a student,
attention, that his left leaning view of history is based on misrepresentation
of the facts.You are of course correct in your observation that Johnson
inheretied the Vietnam engagement from his predecessors,however it
was Johnson who turned it into a fullblown war,and his missmanagement
that insured that it was lost.
                            Regards