Will history be kinder to Bush than we are?

It is fashionable these days, even popular, to question President Bush's standing in history. Critics assail the White House for a war that has cost the United States blood, treasure and international standing. At home, civil libertarians bemoan the loss of rights for both the law-abiding and the terrorist.

But there are some signs that history may judge Bush as a more substantial president than he is viewed by many Americans.

Progress in turning North Korea's dictator against nuclear weapons is, in some quarters, credited to Bush's resolute stance. The legacy in Africa is undeniable -- from an unprecedented $15 billion to confront AIDS to a staunch line against dictators like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. And some believe that historians may come to regard Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq as critical to U.S. security. As British writer Andrew Roberts wrote recently in the Daily Telegraph:

"No one -- least of all Bush himself -- denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys -- the overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud."

Even Bush critic Andrew J. Bacevich, writes in today's Boston Globe that the president's "many failures" are likely to produce "a considerable legacy" of accomplishments, what he calls a record of "substantial if almost entirely malignant achievement."

In a piece called "What Bush Hath Wrought," Bacevich argues that Bush has implanted in U.S. foreign policy certain concepts that will be difficult for a new president to shake: the concept of a global war on terrorism, the doctrine of pre-emptive war, the national security need for White House secrecy and the shift of U.S. strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Middle East, "the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin" as the heart of U.S. foreign policy.

Let the debate begin.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: White House

Comments

[Al Ramirez]

President Abraham Linocln was so unpopular even at the time of his election that it caused the break up of the Union and resulted in the Civil War. Brother against Brother, Countryman Against Countryman, Every Single Death an American's. He was so unpopular that there were constant death threats and the Union Army was even splintered on the basis of inequality in terms of service with the poor and the Irish taking a majority of the infrantry roles because the rich and privellaged avoided the service. President Lincoln even though victorious was assasinated over this Un-Popular War. Thank God he believed in One American Under God and in the end he has gone down as one of the best if not the best President in American History as well as one of the greatest leaders in World History. It is weakness in the threat of danger that brings a President's rating down in history, ask the "Great Appeaser" Jimmy Carter what happens when you back down from Radical Enemies who hold your countrymen hostage for 444 days in an effort to control almost half of the world's oil.

[Lev Bronstein]

To suggest that W. will go down in history as a strong and farsighted president is absurd. He clearly lied his way into a war that only he and a few neocons around him wanted -- he has repeatedly broken the law (e.g., FISA law). He and his cronies have badly mismanaged almost everything they have touched. He is leaving with the economy in a shambles, oil at $140 a barrel, the dollar in the toilet the US mired in an unending and pointless war in Iraq. He has appointed activist reactionary judges to federal courts that will be making law for years to come. He gutted the Justice department and made it a cozy far right wing club. Then there's Katrina. Oh, and how about signing statements? He thinks he is king. To compare him to Abraham Lincoln is a joke! W. and his ilk would have have been for the Confederacy (of course, George would have used family influence to get out of actually serving) -- you can bet on it. As far as I can tell they oppose the Enlightenment.

So you can cherry pick a few things that have gone OK, but to put that against the disasters? The situation in the middle east is more volatile and dangerous, by far, than it was at the start of Bush's reign. He makes Horace Harding look like George Washington.

[DVS]

"...the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11..."

That may be true, but all that has done has caused al-Qa'eda to initiate terrorist attacks on our allies and any country perceived to be an ally. It scares off any country that may wish to join in dialogues with the U.S. in efforts to promote peace around the world. No one wants to do business wit the U.S. if in doing so, you put your country at risk of terrorist attack. If your a friend of America, you an enemy of al-Qa'eda. I don't see how that is "...a legacy of which to be proud."

[Jim]

How history remembers George W. Bush depends on who writes that history. If Germany had won World War II, we'd have a very different portrait of Adolf Hitler in our history books. If England had won the Revolutionary War, we'd have a very different portrait of George Washington. The victor writes the history, and so the question is, who wins under George W. Bush's legacy? It sure isn't you or me.