Krauthammer: For W, it's win, lose & draw

Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.

Six years later and with time running out on this administration, the Bush legacy is clear: one for three. Contrary to current public opinion, Bush will have succeeded on Iraq, failed on Iran and fought North Korea to a draw.

Iran. Bush has thrown in the towel on Iran's nuclear program because the intelligence bureaucracy, in a spectacularly successful coup, seized control of the policy with a National Intelligence Estimate that very misleadingly trumpeted the claim that Iran had halted its nuclear program. In fact, Iran only halted the least important component of its nuclear program, namely weaponization.

The hard part is the production of the nuclear fuel. Iran continues enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges at work in open defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Once you have the necessary fuel, you can make the bomb in only a few months.

Thus to even speak of the Iranian program as having been stopped while enrichment continues is absurd. And that is true even if you discount recent dissidents' reports that the weaponization program, suspended in 2003, in fact resumed the following year - contrary to the current NIE estimate, offered with only "moderate confidence," that it has never been restarted.

The administration had to immediately release and accept the NIE's sensational conclusions because the report would have been leaked and the administration then accused of covering up good news to justify going to war, the assumption being that George Bush and Dick Cheney have a Patton-like lust for the smell of battle.

The administration understands that the NIE's distorted message that Iran has given up pursuing nukes has not only taken any military option off the table but jeopardized any further sanctions against Iran. Making the best of the lost cause, Bush will now go through the motions until the end of his term, leaving the Iranian bomb to his successor.

North Korea. We did get Kim Jong Il to disable his plutonium-producing program. The next step is for Pyongyang to disclose all nuclear activities. This means coming clean on past proliferation and on the clandestine uranium enrichment program that North Korea had once admitted but now denies.

Knowing we have no credible threats against North Korea, we now come bearing carrots. President Bush writes a personal letter to Kim Jong Il, in essence entreating him to come clean on his nuclear program so we can proceed to full normalization.

Disabling the plutonium reactor is an achievement and we do gain badly needed intelligence by simply being there on the ground to inspect. There is, however, no hope of North Korea giving up its existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and little assurance that we will find, let alone disable, any clandestine programs. But lacking sticks, we take what we can.

Iraq is a different story. Whatever our subsequent difficulties, our initial success definitively rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his monstrous sons. The Hussein dynasty will not - as it would have, absent the U.S. invasion - rebuild, rearm and threaten the world.

The taking down of Saddam led directly to Libya's full nuclear disarmament and, undoubtedly, to Iran's 2003 suspension of weaponization.

As for Iraq itself, after three years of disorientation, the U.S. has finally found a winning counterinsurgency strategy.

It took Bush three years to find his general (as it did Lincoln) and turn a losing war into a winnable one. Baghdad and Washington are currently discussing a long-term basing agreement that could give the United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland - a major strategic achievement.

Nonetheless, the pressure on this administration and the next to get out prematurely will remain. There are those for whom our only objective in Iraq is reducing troop levels rather than securing a potentially critical Arab ally in a region of supreme strategic significance.

On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Sen. George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.

“I think he’s missing one win, Afghanistan. The US Military did something the Soviets and Charlie couldn’t do, turn Afghanistan into a functioning Democracy.”

A tad premature, as with Iraq. We ought to be as hopeful as possible, but we won’t know the answer for a few years. And the real test will be whether the Iraqis prove big enough to permit real religious freedom, i.e., for the ancient Christians of Mesopotamia—assuming that doltish Protestant missionaries leave them alone long enough to survive. I’ll keep hoping but it’s an uphill climb.

On the other hand, even in giving the Afghans and Iraqis a chance to establishing free, representative, religiously plural government, to that degree at least, one can say Bush has already succeeded. But if in the long-term it all blows up five or eight years from now, the success will be a limited one. Commendable but limited. Only time will tell.

I think Charles is being a bit harsh in his judgment and conclusion. Besides the great progress in Afghanistan (even if W didn’t put it in the “Axis of Evil”), Charles forgets or ignores (as almost all pundits and politicians seem to) Libya’s giving up it’s WMD program almost immediately after Sadam’s fall and ultimate capture — a huge victory in the war on terror.

But Charles’ assessment does speak to a few things that unfortunately W has to accept responsibility for: his inability to articulate the vision/rationale and sustain support for the war on terror and to keep our allies engaged; this inability also allowed the Dems to take a vacation from their responsibilities in the WOT. It’s really unfortunate but W’s legacy will be directly tied to whoever follows him into office because that person will either sustain the effort or “declare victory” and give up.

Another failure on W’s part: allowing the State Department, CIA, and other arms of the government to drift into a rogue status, undermining the very necessary WOT. In retrospect, W should have cleared the decks after Bubba departed including dispatching George Tenet and getting some Cheney-like figure in there to take names and kick-*ss. W’s Administration was not timed properly for trying out “compassionate conservatism”.

He could have/ should have...stayed and secured
Afghanistan...wnd made it a prime accomplishment...
Iraq would have fell off the tree like a ripe
grape..eventually. GWB’s ambitions exceeded the
reality of that region of the would...His Dad knew
the obvious dangers !!!!!!!!! JK

Rpublicans do not ever “clear the decks.” The best is Reagan simply ignored his State Department and bypassed the CIA. State and the Intel depts. are permanent bastions of the left just as the Universities and government schools are. Republicans are always wimps when it comes to clearing out the non Civil Service part of the bureaucracy when they take office. That is why Republicans’ effectiveness is always “limited.” Democrats clean house as soon as they come in.

A hard judgment for a President who set higher goals than just about any President in many generations. Although he did warn us many times that the War on Terror would extend beyond his Presidency, he also stated many times that Iran would not obtain nuclear weapons and that NK's neighbors would and should deal with North Korean missiles.

What lesson are we to take from this? Multilateral diplomacy and working with the world's organizations has failed and unilateral war has succeeded. This is something not many Democrats and Huckabee supporters will be willing to concede. Instead they will say that Bush's diplomacy failed because it was tainted by the threat of war. So they will promise no war if only worthless pieces of paper are signed. To turn the other cheek they will also disarm us slowly as a way to barter for more pieces of paper. I can't think of a single time in history that this strategery has succeeded. Needless to say I'm not overly optimistic. We have raised many generations of people who have lived comfortable and sheltered lives. Did we forget to teach them about evil or are there those who just believe it can be wished away?

Not necessarily. We’ll never know, since the effort was sabotaged by other world powers, MSM-Dhimmicrats here at home, traitors within CIA and State etc. Whatever success it has had and will have will come despite powerful efforts at sabotage. Now, of course, GWB should have anticipated that and the apparent inability of his advisors to grasp the long, hard slog of rebuilding that would follow toppling Saddam—for all of that he should be held accountable. So, if it does succeed and still is succeeding 5 years down the road, he deserves the credit for sticking with it, alongside Petraeus and all the soldiers and marines and all the others; he also takes the hit if it eventually fails.

To say he overreached is too simplistic. The original Bush doctrine made a lot of sense. Calculating the likelihood of success was a different matter—where he miscalculated, I think, is underestimating the degree to which Americans would try to sabotage their own soldiers. But after Vietnam, he should not have underestimated that. Still, in the end it may succeed and he deserves great credit if it does.

It’s just premature to say one way or the other now, including your summary judgment. Five years from now you may be proven right. Right now, I don’t think we know.

Right and in part because of the MSM bias, they get away with it and even if Bush had tried it he would have been hammered and perhaps lost all political capital—remember, he came in with very little because of the Chad War. I was very disappointed that he did not clean house—it was so obvious that he needed to and equally obvious he chose not to. But given the thread of perceived legitimacy upon which he began his incumbancy, perhaps he did about what he was able to do. Which is a sad commentary on the way Gore and the Dhimmis undermined his ability to govern from the get-go and the way the MSM undermines it even without the peculiar circumstances of the Chad War.

1) We did stay in Afghanistan and still are.
2) I see no evidence Iraq would have fallen “like a ripe grape”. We waited for that for eight years during the cease fire with them.
3) GHW Bush was not given the opportunity to finish the job. Instead we turned to a man who pretty much closed his eyes while the world took Saddam’s dirty money.
4) We were always warned that the War on Terror would take many generations. It ain’t over and there’s no fat lady singing.

And it would have only taken one act by an emboldened (by 911) enriched (by the UN Oil For food fiasco) terrorist, maniac, Sadistic, murdering Islamic Jihadist named Saddam Hussein, either by funneling money or weapons or support to any Jihadist (didn’t have to be UBL or members of Al-Qaeda if you can’t quite grasp the CIA failures) but either way only one attack here in the U.S. on par with or worse then 911 and Bush would have been a complete failure...

In Context, because he acted against Iraq when he did, he very well may have saved this country from complete ruin.

The number one job of the POTUS is to Protect this country... PERIOD... and Bush gets an A+ there....

This is assuming that the "drift" is of recent origin and development, which assumption isn't necessarily valid. The CIA, and the State Department, as a whole, have been rogue operations, pursuing their own agendas, for as long as I have been alive. People here like to talk about the "Clintonistas" at State, but the true "Clintonistas" were political appointments which were changed in relatively short order. The real damage came from, as it ever has done, by the career "Foggy Bottom" types, who work their anti American venom no matter which party controls the Executive branch, and have done so for over half a century...

the infowarrior

I agree and I’m well aware of those guys... “the best and the brightest” brought in post World War II... many from the Ivies (including my alma mater) and many among those brought in during the Demo/Post-FDR dominated congresses of the 1950’s and 1960’s (and 70’s for that matter). And guess what, these people hired replacements just like themselves, so you’re right: it bred a culture that will take a generation or two to clean-up and maybe not even then. But W could have pressed with more aggressive political appointees and more dedicated heads of these departments, agencies and bureaucracies. But like his Dad, he believed in a kinder and gentler country. And guys like Richard Clarke stabbed him in the back.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.