Posted on 07/17/2008 5:04:44 AM PDT by Clive
TORONTO -- No wonder George W. Bush isn't looking as sprightly as he did when he landed aboard the USS Lincoln five years ago.
Then it was all "Mission Accomplished," as the banner strung across the flat-top behind him proclaimed. After just a few weeks of warfare, the Taliban had evaporated in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime had collapsed in Iraq. In 2003, Mr. Bush could have retired from the field as victor, but he wanted to bring democracy to the region and stayed.
Now he will probably have to retire a loser.
Five years ago, at the high noon of his presidency, Mr. Bush appeared to be doing the right thing. Today, as his presidency is winding down, his global policies have fewer and fewer supporters inside or outside the United States. Some old allies, like Britain's Tony Blair, have withdrawn from the arena altogether. Those who remain or have newly entered, like Canada's Stephen Harper or France's Nicolas Sarkozy, are busy with their own agendas. Bush cannot count on his current allies as reliable supporters on any issue, be it the missile shield, the Far East or the Persian Gulf.
Domestically, his situation is better but also worse. Better, because as president he can implement certain foreign policy items without anyone's support, and worse because his support at home is even less than it is internationally.
A Democratic presidential candidate wouldn't support a Republican president's foreign policies even if he agreed with them (he doesn't) while the current Republican candidate never much agreed with his party about anything. Oh, John McCain may have supported Mr. Bush's "surge" policy in Iraq -- or even claimed credit for it -- but the old pilot and the young pilot have always flown in different skies.
As November approaches, both parties' candidates strive to distinguish themselves from what they view as a disastrous White House. They do so, even when available choices make it unlikely that either Barack Obama or Mr. McCain could do anything very different from what Mr. Bush is doing.
The two legs of Mr. Bush's foreign policy have been "regime change" and "nation building." One doctrine entails the removal of belligerent tyrannies hostile to America by military intervention; the other envisages their replacement with pacific democracies friendly to the United States. Everything that occurred in the world during the two Bush-presidencies has emerged from the operation and consequences of these doctrines. The first, being realistic, has been implemented with some success; the second, being unrealistic, hasn't been.
Someone might argue that this oversimplifies things. Even if so, the analysis is fundamentally accurate. Are the lessons of Mr. Bush's success and failure understood and taken to heart by either his friends or his enemies? Does Mr. Bush himself knows how right he was when he campaigned on a platform of "no nation building" before his first term of office? Those are different questions.
I doubt if Mr. Bush understands that his mistake wasn't to go into Iraq but to stay. His critics certainly don't understand it. They think it was a mistake to remove Saddam. They don't see that the mistake was -- and continues to be -- to believe that if America removes a hostile tyrant, it's America's responsibility to replace him with a friendly democrat. The fact is, it isn't. It may be America's hope and desire, but not its task.
National Post
-
If bush has left too soon Iraq would be part of Iran.
Can’t stand that BS. The only mistake was not using the Momentum of 2003/2004 and expanding the WoT against Iran and Syria.
Start by using something someone said or did, present it in an unfair or untruthful light, and then spend tons of time hammering at the unfair and untruthful conclusions that are drawn from the unfair and untruthful presentation.
Once again we're led to believe that the “Mission Accomplished” sign was meant to mean we had succeeded in Iraq. That was never the purpose of the sign and no amount of explaining will ever clear up the confusion about why the banner was there. It's just too handy for use as a club with which to beat up on Dubya.
People like the ass who wrote this have no understanding of the military whatsoever, and depend on their readers having even less understanding.
And, people like this ass, have nothing but contempt for the kind of people it takes to keep an aircraft carrier on station. I think that's mostly because they realize how inferior a butt-monkey journalist is to anyone serving on an aircraft carrier, or a submarine, or stationed “over there.” In the case of the carrier you have thousands and thousands of people and billions of dollars concentrated in an effort to do one thing, and that's make the superior armed forces of the United States able to project our power anywhere it's needed.
This ass-clown can't even begin to fathom what it takes from both the service person and his/her family to be a part of such a force.
Might it not have been cheaper in blood and treasure(having, in Kiplings words, terribly carpeted the earth with death) to simply depose the thrugs, hang the worst of them and then leave with a resounding message:
Behave or we will be back!
Like the bumper sticker I saw years ago:
“Don’t make Me come down there! God. “
This doesn’t work if Syria, Iran and Al-Qaeda had taken over Iraq after we had left in 2003/2004. When external powers fill the vacuum the threat “we will be back” is futile.
"Are the lessons of Mr. Bush's success and failure understood and taken to heart by either his friends or his enemies?"
"Does Mr. Bush himself knows how right he was when he campaigned on a platform of "no nation building" before his first term of office?"
This "analysis" is not fundamentally accurate, because, YES!, the "lessons" indeed are not understood by the author or many of the President's "friends or his enemies".
With "nation building", as with other elements, the President early, and clearly, stated:
"9/11 changes everything"
Forget that phrase, or purposely leave it out, and you cannot develop an accurate analysis.
Yes, and the body count would be in the millions, perhaps tens of millions.
Mr Jonas is a bit of a moron.
Like I need a Canadian tellin’ me what’s wrong with my country. LOL.
The author is a fool. If Bush can pull this off the Middle East will have been re-made. Right in the heart of the Arab world a new leader will have been born. What is more, it will be a multicultural state built within the cockamamie borders created at Versailles. Iran knows this. Saudi Arabia knows it, as does Iran. What is happening in Iraq is breathtaking; it is a history in the making that the Democrat Party, for one, simply cannot understand.
“The author is a fool. If Bush can pull this off the Middle East will have been re-made. Right in the heart of the Arab world a new leader will have been born. What is more, it will be a multicultural state built within the cockamamie borders created at Versailles. Iran knows this. Saudi Arabia knows it, as does Iran. What is happening in Iraq is breathtaking; it is a history in the making that the Democrat Party, for one, simply cannot understand.”
Surely you’re a plant from the Onion!
No one could seriously believe in that “multicultural state” crapola.
Gentlemen, we are surrounded by morons.
Gentlemen, we are surrounded by morons.
His daddy had tried that already, and guess what we are back. I see a lot of positive things coming out of Iraq, had we left if would be far different. Also it was tried in Germany after WWI, and the result was WWII. No, as much as might hate nation building it was the correct thing to do just as it was correct to rebuild Germany as we did.
Exactly!
It is tragic that so many Americans are ignorant of what is happening in Iraq and how large the ante really is. In your puerile attempt at analysis you laugh at the thought of a multiculturalist state. I would simply point out that in the Middle East a multicultral state exists already in the form of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and even Israel. If you want to see amazing economic progress in Iraq go (as two members of my family have) to Kurdistan. Elsewhere, the efforts to enhance Shiite tourism and pilgimage in the Karbala area is astounding. Reports have it that economic activity is now moving quickly in Basra and the Faw. Most of Baghdad has been pacified and unemployment is dropping. Thirty international oil companies now seek entree to Iraq.
Not surprisingly, the business community is moving much more quickly than the political community to achieve cultural integration. It is the politicians role in life to sccew things up, but there is still great hope in Iraq that a multicultural Iraq will not only survive, but thrive.
“In your puerile attempt at analysis you laugh at the thought of a multiculturalist state.”
Actually, I made no attempt at anqalsis, but simply scoffed at your pollyanna optimism re Iraq. In fact, I quite like ‘multicultural’ political entities such as Austria-Hungary. Perhaps a revival of the Ottoman Empire would be worthwhile.
As you say,”the business community is moving much more quickly than the political community to achieve cultural integration. It is the politicians role in life to sccew things up...”
I especially agree with this latter sentiment.
Good luck to all Iraqis.
bookmark
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.