I think that Bush will someday be recognized as a great president, much as it has been the case with Harry Truman, with whom he has a lot in common. Having said that, I will stipulate that we needed more clarity than he gave us both in naming the enemy and in naming the war. For this a very steep price has been paid in the coin of confusion about Iraq. Instead of being seen in its proper context as a single front or theater in a much broader conflict, it has been treated as a self-contained war in its own right. And instead of being understood as part of a long-range strategy to “drain the swamps” in which Islamofascism breeds, it has been misrepresented as the wrong place in which to fight terrorism.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjUwNGQ4ZDRmNWU4NjhkYTg2MmQ0ZDE0YmE5ZjUzYmM=
Islamofascism. what a great word and what a tough opponent in WWIV. I dont know if Bush will be considered a great president in the future, but he will definately be seen in a better light. I think probably the neocons would like him to be seen as a hero because it would help to justify the warhawks in the bunch. Iraq is a difficult issue and Bush has made some mistakes over there and has paid, really the GOP has padi and is paying for them. I am interested in the comparisons to Truman. I have never considered him to be a great president am I all alone? To me great a great prez is Lincoln, Washington . . .
ReplyDeleteEnlighten me please.
I'm not a historian but I do admire Truman because he viewed Communism as an evil political system and he had the moral courage to help nations resist its expansion via the Truman Doctrine. He understood that it was in our nation's best interest to see Communism stopped. I wouldn't place him in the first tier of great presidents, but surely in the second tier. The first is reserved for the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan.
ReplyDeleteYou're right though that the mistakes made in this war, principally through Rumsfeld's errant policies, could leave a severe blemish on Bush's overall legacy. If Petraeus had been in charge from the get go, things would be much better in Iraq now. But I think history will forgive Bush in light of his visionary objective of demanding change from the status quo in the Middle East. Maybe in this way, Bush and Truman could be compared. Both see a threat clearly: Truman and Communism, Bush and Islamofascism. Bush hopes to support nations in their fight against al-Qaida just as Truman helped nations in their fight against Communism.
Also interesting is the fierce opposition Bush and Truman ran into as a result of their firm conviction. The calls from that era are similar to those of today: "We have no business interfering in the affairs of other nations..." This is why I thought the Buckley/Chomsky debate that I posted a while back was so relevant for today.