Monday, January 19, 2009

The Bush Presidency


This will probably be an extremely unpopular post, as it's about one of the most unpopular presidents. Or so it would seem. You see, it's my opinion that George W. Bush may be regarded by future historians as one of the best presidents.

See, I told you it would be an unpopular post.

The greatness of a U.S. President will be determined by the big things, not the little things. If someone mentions George Washington, one naturally thinks about the revolutionary war, the FIRST president, etc. The big rocks, not the little issues. Ditto for honest Abe. You'll think of the civil war. No one remembers Lincoln's position on anything except for southern secession and the civil war.

Same will be true of G.W. Bush. In a hundred years it's only the big items that will matter.

Let's start with global warming. If you believe it's real, the only real solution is significant investment in alternative energy sources. Because of high oil prices, all kinds of companies, new and old, are stepping up to the plate to find new sources of energy. This is the free market at work and Bush is a proponent of the free market. A hundred years from now, historians may well say that Bush's free market views launched us on a path to salvation from "global climate change".

Terrorism has been one of the really big rocks in the Bush presidency. History will not blame him for the attacks on 9/11/2001 (that was clearly the fault of the Clinton administration) but it will probably credit him with preventing any other attacks during his two terms.

How about the "axis of evil", Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. He made promises to make the axis of evil a top priority. How'd he do?

Iraq, it turns out, didn’t have any WMDs by the time we invaded the country, but they probably did prior to that. They also acted like they had them by playing cat and mouse games with UN inspectors. That undoubtedly made Iran nervous since their relationship has never been good. Remember, they were at war during all of the 1980s. So, whether Iraq had WMDs or not, Iran and much of the rest of world thought they did so Iran decided it had better get on the stick and get a nuclear weapons program going.

About the time the U.S. armed forces marched into Iraq, Iran took note and seemed to have stopped their nuclear ambitions. History may well credit Bush with averting a nuclear war in the mid-east. It may seem far-fetched right now but a look back at history will show that stranger conclusions have been reached.

North Korea also seems to have shut down its nuclear program. History will probably credit Bush with that too. You see, when we invaded Iraq, we took out the leadership (Sadaam Hussein) and his sons. Dictators notice things like that. What happened in Iraq probably made Kim Jong II think that if the U.S. was crazy enough to march into Iraq and kill its dictator and his obliging family members, they just might be crazy enough to march into North Korea.
Libya, meanwhile, abandoned its nuclear ambitions without even being asked. Another point for “W”.

What about Al Qaeda? The war in Iraq might turn out to accidentally be the end of Al-Qaeda. History might record that Iraq was the turning point in the war on terror. Iraq became the place where the rubber met road and terrorists flocked there like it was Mecca. They began killing locals and other Muslims, not just American soldiers. That pissed off the locals so they started killing the terrorists. More importantly, they killed the terrorist leadership often. Do that a few times and you leave only the dumb ones. Al-Qaeda bet everything on Iraq, and lost. Bush’s actions and rhetoric to “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” pretty much worked. While it didn’t happen exactly the way he thought it would, history will probably credit him for moving the fight and winning it. True, he didn’t catch or kill Osama Bin Laden, but he did render him virtually impotent and did manage to capture or kill most of his first tier commanders.

Those are the big issues George W. Bush will be judged on in a hundred years and I think he’ll hold up quite well.

No comments: