Yes, Bush was right.
Nile Gardiner writing for The Telegraph:
Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush’s personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America’s 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq’s parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region’s first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West’s most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.
The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush’s aggressive strategy actually worked.
Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.
President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the importance of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled Bush’s “poodle” over his support for the war in Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The decision by Bush, with Blair’s support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.
Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America’s failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops, with almost the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S., UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan is not a failure of American leadership, it is a damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist Europe that simply will not fight.
President Bush also recognized the importance of re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defence system in Europe, successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, and both would be well on their way to membership today were it not for the feckless decision of France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking their path to entry.
Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America’s enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.
Bush’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea included, will seek to militarily challenge American power. The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.
If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged. President Bush exercised U.S. military power to stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an important reminder that America was still a force to be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and challenges, the projection of hard power matters, and America’s next president would be wise to take heed.
Bush was right!
Hat tip for article: Conservatism with Heart
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
YESSSSS! Bush was right, the right was right and the left of course was wrong as usual.
I never saw Bush’s move into Afghanistan and Iraq as wrong. In fact I remember we had a long argument and betting in my trading room over what Bush would do after 911. I said the only thing he can do is invade Afghanistan, and I bet money on it and I won. Later I bet he would invade Iraq, and also won money on it. Bush behaves in a logical manner, not according to polls and politics. It is rather easy to predict what he will do, as he will do what he thinks is best for his idea of america, no matter how hard or damaging it is to him politically or personally. One has to give him credit for this kind of integrity. He did not have to do it, he knew it would be very unpopular, difficult to succeed in, and maybe he would be committing political and media suicide, but he still did it because he knew it was right.
Thus Bush must be highly respected, and anyone who cannot see this is not only a coward who is unable to appreciate moral courage, but is also sadly lacking in basic intelligence.
Sad to say there are many americans that fall into this category nowadays, maybe american schooling has something to do with it.
What Bush has done in Iraq, with the efforts of the american military, is create a modern democracy in one of the most socially primitive, murderous, oppressive and backward places on earth(Iraq and the middle east). It is no exaggeration to say that he has liberated 60M people who now will have better lives for themselves and their children. Women’s rights, education, free speech, free discussion in society, you name it, all will improve.
So different from the time when you americans came and bombed the shit out of Vietnam, and killed so many people here and changed basically nothing.
Americans should be very proud of what they have achieved in Iraq. It is truly something great from a historical perspective. Unfortunately those americans who are lacking in intelligence actually see it as a mistake or something to be ashamed of. This has got to be the pinnacle of stupidity.
I also take exception to that British writer’s claim that the British counter insurgency in Malaya was a success. That’s nonsense. The communists here peacefully gave up because their chinese leader, Chin Peng(who had fought the japanese alongside british special forces in occupied malaya and was supposed to be knighted), decided that communism was the wrong path and also since the British were leaving malaya, what for continue fighting???? Chin Peng had killed the Brit High Commissioner but spared his family. He publically respected his target’s bravery as the guy walked away from his ambushed armored convoy to draw fire away from his family. Today Chin Peng is alive and has written a book.
“The communists here peacefully gave up because their chinese leader, Chin Peng(who had fought the japanese alongside british special forces in occupied malaya and was supposed to be knighted), decided that communism was the wrong path and also since the British were leaving malaya, what for continue fighting????”
WRONG. If you give up, for whatever reason then you have lost. The communists lost and that was thanks to British and Malayan efforts. And he continued to fight for the communist cause even after Malaysia achieved independence. The communist insurgency renewed in 1967 and lasted until 1989. They still failed. Chin Peng is an exile from his own country and responsible for many executions and murders.
“America’s 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt”
Yep I can only imagine how much you folks here love that 4 term winning Democrat FDR:)
How true. I’ve been saying for a while now that Bush will be treated kindly by History, but it might not be in 10 or 20 years. One Obama screw-up, allowing an attack to happen in the US on his watch, will make the citizenry miss Bush immediately. Obama does not have the excuse that he didn’t know it could happen, i.e., there can be no future failure of imagination by our Government. I also think all the security briefings have splashed cold water on The One’s attitudes, which will cause his Obamabots heads’ to explode. But with Obama’s already leaky transition team, I believe Obama will have the most corrupt administration in US history since Warren G. Harding or Ulysses S. Grant. With that possiblity looming on the horizon, we just may not have to put up with Chicago Jesus for a full term. Once Obama is in the big chair, responsible for actually making decisions (something he’s not done his entire life — you can’t vote “present” in the Oval Office), he will screw-up so badly that a second term is well outside the realm of possibility. But Duh One will look arrogantly good while going down the tubes.
Actually he could just pocket veto everything that comes across his desk, letting the legislative branch have full control of the government. As for his other duties, he could just ignore those as well…he’s pretty much ignored any responsibility in his past so why should anything change now?
Gaffa: As you know from our exchanges at the home planet conservatives do admire the stregth of leadership FDR exhibited during the Second World War. That doesn’t mean we agree with his social or fiscal policies. Can we get back to the point now?
The Nile Gardiner article is stunning!
Let me just sum it up with these three quotes:
…
His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America’s enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.
…
If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged.
Gotta disagree with Gaffa.
It is the mark of wisdom to give up when you see there is no reason to continue your cause, or the reasons why you began no longer exist. This is what happened with Chin Peng. Also Gaffa is wrong that Chin Peng continued his activities after malaya was granted independence. By then Chin Peng had already retired and was inactive. He only formally retired later on with guarantees that the govts there would not go after him and his soldiers.
What I said is correct. Check any history.
The british NEVER succeeded in any counter insurgency operation in malaya. It was the chinese who retired after they felt there was no need to continue after the british left. Thus, one could say that the communists DEFEATED the british there.
If you are fighting the british, and the british say they will LEAVE, what sense is there to continue fighting???? Only the brainless would carry on so.
My understanding is that the british in modern history have NEVER succeeded in any counter insurgency operation. From afghanistan, palestine, malaya, etc, I’m sorry to say the record is not that good. Usually the british SUCCEED by leaving the area concerned.
Just like they abandoned “The Impenetrable Fortress of Singapore” here to the Japanese. Much as I like the brits, they don’t have a very impressive record of things warlike in the modern era.
But since you brits have just bought 100 armored vehicles from the locals here(and thus jacked up some of my stocks), I’ll forgive you.
Chinese Communism is a very strange thing.
Some of the most fervent communists here gave up being communists when they saw the system not working and saw that there was a better alternative(capitalist system with reasonably honest and capable govt).
During the colonial times, the chinese communities in SEAsia all turned to communism and help from communist china to throw out the british and european colonialists. Help from china only would come if you agreed with their communist doctrine. With the poverty and oppression of those times, I cannot really blame them, as they would not know better. Up to 30 years ago, signs still hung on clubs here, “No Dogs and Chinese allowed”.
However, the SEAsian countries soon left the communist doctrine in favor of the “strong govt and directed capitalistic economic growth” model as stereotyped by singapore.
As capitalism and living standards rose, soon many of the local communists forgot their communism and embraced or at least tolerated the new society. Some of the past communists are now the CEOs of highly competitive listed companies, turn their yellow skin white and they are no different from any Fortune 500 company.
The success of SEAsia made the mainland chinese come and study these models, and later successfully replicate them back home on a much larger scale.
You can see how successful this has been as the americans now owe the chinese maybe a trillion dollars and singaporeans are now the major shareholders of american banks like Citi, Merrill, etc and euro banks like UBS.
Adopting the british parliamentary system instead of the american system allowed usually one strong party to dominate political life while still allowing some measure of feedback from the voters.
For better or worse, this has roughly become the model in some countries here, and is followed to a certain extent in the mainland and also in Russia.
“My understanding is that the british in modern history have NEVER succeeded in any counter insurgency operation.”
Oh dear your understanding is pretty poor then. Never heard of Lawrence of Arabia?
I wrote:
“My understanding is that the british in modern history have NEVER succeeded in any counter insurgency operation.”
Gaffa replied:
“Oh dear your understanding is pretty poor then. Never heard of Lawrence of Arabia?”
———————————–
Gaffa, are u stupid or something??? Your example is totally wrong. Where are your brains???
Lawrence was an INSURGENT HIMSELF, not one of those COUNTERING the insurgents.
————————————————
Wikipedia:
“Contrary to later myth, it was not Lawrence or the Army that conceptualised a campaign of internal insurgency against the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East: it was the Arab Bureau of Britain’s Foreign Office. The Arab Bureau had long felt it likely that a campaign instigated and financed by outside powers, supporting the breakaway-minded tribes and regional challengers to the Turkish government’s centralised rule of their empire, would pay great dividends in the diversion of effort that would be needed to meet such a challenge. The Arab Bureau was the first to recognise what is today called the “asymmetry” of such conflict. The Ottoman authorities would have to devote a hundred or a thousand times the resources to contain the threat of such an internal rebellion compared to the Allies’ cost of sponsoring it.
At that point in the Foreign Office’s thinking they were not considering the region as candidate territories for incorporation in the British Empire, but only as an extension of the range of British Imperial influence, and the weakening and destruction of a German ally, the Ottoman Empire.
During the war, Lawrence fought with Arab irregular troops under the command of Emir Faisal, a son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, in extended guerrilla operations against the armed forces of the Ottoman Empire.”
————————————————–
On yer bike, mate. Go off and ride with Lawrence. Make sure you sit behind him and not in front of him, mate!!!!!!
Utterly brainless!!!!
@Sigmundringeck
Doh! Yep – you’re right. Bring on more of the abuse…!
Meanwhile try this for size…
UK and IRA
IRA – Irish Nationalists – goal to get UK to withdraw from Ireland and have Ireland united.
UK – Stop IRA terrorist attacks.
Well I see Ireland isn’t united and the IRA has stopped bombing.