RSS

January 19, 2010

Member deleted

Rather fair assessment.

Quoting a famous saying by Nixon : "Let me make things perfectly clear.", and that's when people get even more confused.

And that's probably what the revisionists will have to face up to.

One of the most asked questions faced when the previous pres. was first elected, for example :

From a Chinese friend, Mr. Huang Xinli, "Why would US elect such a person to be the pres. ?", typical answer, "He is easy to control."

Another occasion, met a handler on AOL instant messenger about the same time, can't be independently proven, in that she was pretty upset with GWB in that she complained : "He can't even concentrate for 10 minutes on any report, double spaced, with enlarged characters."

Nonetheless, he is, in the end, responsible for the mess and results.

January 19, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

Nixon was a complex figure. He had what could certainly be considered personality flaws. However, I question if what Nixon ever did was all that much worse than the questionable tactics of his immediate predecessors, LBJ and JFK. It is well known that LBJ was not above wiretapping including his 1964 Republican opponent's plane. Additionally, JFK's AG, and brother, RFK was not above blackmailing private enterprises.

This is not to absolve Nixon of responsibility, however, Nixon is rarely put into an appropriate context. He is perpetually perceived as the dark, brooding, master manipulater who finally got his just desserts. If this is true of him, it is not too far from being true of the much more beloved JFK and certainly of LBJ, who while criticized for Vietnam, never has had the same opprobrium leveled at him. Additionally, in an era where documents like the "Pentagon Papers" were being leaked to the press and the "intellectual elite", enamored of their own moral certitude, was busy tearing down American policy , it is not difficult to imagine why a President desiring to maintain American credibility would have felt under constant assault.

I think a full understanding of this context makes it much more difficult to cavalierly dismiss Nixon and apply simplistic moral criteria to him. He was a skillful strategist and along with Kissinger, perhaps, the most creative American diplomatist of the the last half of the 20th Century. After such creative giants as Kennan, possibly Marshall, and to a lesser extent, Nitze and Acheson, I do not think any others come close to Nixon and Kissinger in talent. They changed the international dynamic in such a way as to give America a flexibility it had lost and, due to domestic political myopia, appeared dedicated to throwing away.

As for George W. Bush, he was not in Nixon's league. His own moral certitude made him inflexible and unable to alter policy trajectories when it became evident that they were going to be unfruitful. However, Bush was not the aject failure so many assume him to be.

The "conventional wisdon" that Bush destroyed our international relations is not well founded. His demeanor left much to be desired, but, thus far, for all of the tonal changes and rhetorical flourishes, President Obama is not translating his obvious popularity into much more than what Bush was left with in his second term.

Further, an examination of his policy shows it is not nearly so "black and white" as this conventional wisdom asserts.

His policy towards India seems solid and, I might add, he is popular in that nation which is is simultaneously the world's second most populous nation and the planet's largest democracy. Additionally, most have argued that his east Asian policy was adroit in managing China and relations with Japan. Given Asia's rising important and propbable long-term centrality to US foreign policy, this is not an inconsequential achievement. As for North Korea, obviously criticism can be levelled, but has the vaunted Obama done any better (yet) at this? Additionally, he is popular in Africa. While the continent is still rarely looked at as anything more than a tragedy, Bush spent more money to confront AIDS than any previous President.

An ininitely long debate could be had on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the PATRIOT Act, WMDs , Iraq, inattention to Global Warming, etc. Indeed, the "morally superior" use any of these words to point their disdainful fingers at Bush and highlight their own piety to the altar of abstract "Humanity." I would agree, we can find serious flaws with much of what Bush did, but the criticism exceeds sober reflection, just as it did with Nixon.

Foreign policy and defense policy is not about "Good vs. Evil" choices. In conceiving it as such, Bush did err. His detractors err, however, in the same way. The tragedy of international relations is that the real decisions are most often between "Bad and Worse." Within that framework, and that framework alone, can any real context be given to evaluate a President.

Nixon and Bush were far from perfect. However, their being turned into straw men useful for burnishing one's own moral credentials does no service to those tasked with grasping the complexities with which all Presidents, indeed all policymakers, must contend.

January 19, 2010

Member deleted

I tend to agree to Greg,

Bush had to react properly to a massive change among old paradigms. 9/11 occurred and the indefectability, its main pillar of promoting democracy abroad, of the US scratched thus had to be restored... and the people were angry, very angry!

Much that I criticise on the Bush Administration is his "black and white" scale that gave its input for an anti-Islamic / anti-Arab sentiment among many people, must not make us forget that Bush was not the one who perpetrated 9/11.

What he did afterwards is to be discussed by a sophisticated and differentiated approach.

Bush critics that root not on idealogical but merely economic perspectives will face the situation were they will have to stand their word!

I sometimes ask myself how large is the share among the US population that turned violet after 9/11 obviously characterised by fascist phrases and racist sayings like "beating the crap out of Hajis" or "crusading", but afterwards turning out to be Obama supporters, however, never asking themselves in how far they cemented developments mentioned above. The impact of frequent opinion polls will have had its influence and determined the Bush legacy.

January 19, 2010

Member deleted

And not to forget expectations by main allies, as one remembers applause when Bush declared the war on terror!

January 20, 2010

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

The author is certainly correct, "The revisionist process has begun". Karen Hughes, of all people, was in the news recently, defending the Bush stimuli and the bailout. However, in place of phrases like 'revisionist' or 'Nixon strategy', I would have used less pejorative, less 'loaded' words. All US Presidencies undergo this process within a year or two of leaving office. It is a bit partisan and even cliché to compare Bush to Nixon -- pundits tried to make the same comparison of Nixon and Regan, which never fit very well either, whereas, the appropriate comparison is Nixon and Clinton. A more logical point of comparison would be Reagan to Bush (Bush was less consequential).

There are many components to the Bush legacy, as the author points out. To his list I would add the 2000 Florida election controversy. But, there's been volumes written about Florida. So, I want to focus on three components, which in the coming years may assume even more importance, for better or worse, depending on how things turn out. Those components are torture, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and democracy promotion.

Regarding torture, it is necessary to state that President Bush, and his administration, are 100% not guilty, until proven guilty in a court of law. It is almost exactly a year into the Obama administration. And yet, we have heard more about Atty General Holder's plans to prosecute selected Gitmo and other detainees, than we've heard about his plans to prosecute the Bush administration. Supposedly, there is an investigation under way, although how Holder's investigation differs from the various bi-partisan investigations under the Bush administration is not clear. If there is eventually a trial, and Bush, or senior members of his administration, are found guilty of serious crimes, that fact will tend to displace all other components of the legacy. Comparisons to the Lewinsky Affair, or to Watergate, will be too mild. Whereas, if they are not found guilty, the logical analogy will be to Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, and not Watergate.

If the AGW theory turns out to be much ado about nothing (which is looking increasingly likely), Bush's legacy will look much, much better. His stubborn resistance to this theory and its expensive, anti-development policy obsessions will be the most important contribution to human happiness and freedom since the end of the Cold War. On the other hand, if AGW turns out to be true, his legacy will not suffer very much. In light of the failed COP15, his resistance will be interpreted as a correct reading of the international political climate, which favored inaction all along.

Finally, regarding democracy promotion: If Iran manages to liberate itself from the theocracy, which is touch-and-go at the moment, most credit will go to the Iranians themselves; still, it will be impossible to deny the critically important, well-timed boost that a mostly free, Shiite-dominated Iraq is giving to the Iranian protesters. A free Iran would, paradoxically, strengthen both the ideal of democracy promotion and also Bush's realist credentials. It would be a major component of Bush's legacy, comparable to (although still somewhat less than) Reagan's Cold War legacy.

On these three critical issues, at least, it is still premature to judge Bush's legacy.

January 20, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Well, we still have a better souvenir of Nixon'spolicies than of Bush's, at least he didn't try to divise the european countries, which were all considered as alliees, his vision was more global, inviting China to prosper through trades agreements and Russia to slow down the arms race, were the stakes of his poker game, that he managed brillantly, as also deriving the cold war "est/west" towards China's borders with URSS, thus occupying his main "enemis"

I would see more Obama attempting to disescalade american implication
in battlefields, like Nixon did, but without a real geopolitical strategy sense, he misses a Kissinger, that poor ol Ms Clinton can't replace. Also America is no more the wealthy country that Nixon found when he got into power.

Bush in the contrary would be more like Johnson, another Texan, who pushed ahead the war involvement in Vietnam, though with not the image of the apocalytic chevalier to whom God gives inspiration

Bush can't be a Nixon, for the main raison that he wasn't able to hold a diplomatic discussion with any political leader that he wasn't fond of, but rather gave the impression that they were his subjects.

But can still America get another Nixon ? He was a kind of last Mohican among the "braves", that were forged through the last world conflict, and surely not fashionable with the babyboomers new generation of politicians

These kind of men are no more bred, our politicians work too much for their narcissic image

January 20, 2010

Alexander Josef Pilic, Freelance Writer, Silver Contributor (56)

GWB's presidency will be judged fairly only after a couple of years when there will be a clearer picture of all those controversial points, no matter what some spin-doctors are trying to do currently. However, those spin-doctors are still being outnumbered by all the bush-bashers in science and media who just cannot get over the fact that Bush's presidency might have had some positive impact, too.

I agree with Greg that Nixon was another caliber but what he and Bush do have in common is that their democratic predecessors left them with foreign policy trouble at the doorstep. Nixon is critized for his bombing campaign in Vietnam but JFK and LBJ were the ones who turned the conflict into a full-blown war.

Resolution 1443 brought on by Bush was an airtight case compared to Johnson's Gulf Of Tonkin declaration. Before Bush's term Clinton clearly failed in identifying the dangerous potentials of Al-Quaida and islamic terrorism and address this challenge early. Nobody could foresee 9/11 but Clinton's soft FP approach unfortunately made it more likely.

January 21, 2010

Juliette Dixon, Science Po Lille, Gold Contributor (118)

Thank you all so much for these high-quality comments!

This parallel made between Nixon and Bush seems to be fairly accurate.

Greg, you said that Nixon as well as Bush legacies had to be scrutinized bearing in mind the context. This is of course true ( "a full understanding of this context makes it much more difficult to cavalierly dismiss Nixon "). Without such a process, Nixon's character is "perpetually perceived as a dark, brooding , master manipulator who finally got his just desserts."

So how will Bush be remembered ? In spite of the brilliant job spin doctors might achieve, how will he be labeled like ? A "true believer in the transformative power of liberal democracy"? (Christian E: Rieck) or a rather "inflexible and unable to alter policy trajectories " (Greg Randolph Lawson)?

Will be ever remembered as this clearcut president ( with a "black and white" scale, Samir Awwad)?

January 21, 2010

Member deleted

So far, can't find any positive impact of the previous US administration on global affairs.

The remote resemblance of "Globalization" and the centuries old and recently renewed concept of "World Government" are fundamentally different, in that :

(1) "Globalization" was done mostly by force, by imposition, under the "US Empire", whereby it's proven now that the "US Empire" is not sustainable economically and otherwise under neocon strategy, by borrowing from poor and developing nations to finance debts and live a luxurious life in the eyes of poor and developing nations. A typical example, the once US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton's efforts to reform or dismantling the UN, turned out to be a failure.

(2) The "World Government" under UN, like that of the EU commission in the EU, is to be established by world need and world consensus. Recent examples of "Copenhagen Conference" and global rescue/relief efforts of Haitian people from the devastating earth quake , among others, clearly show the need, the need for an open, transparent, responsible and accountable world government.

Understandably the new US and Dominican Republic should be contributing most to the rescue efforts etc., along with maintaining orders, due to geographical convenience. Can't find any intentions/motives of annexing Haiti to be the 51th state of the new US.

These rescue/relief etc. efforts are a very heavy burden to take on even globally, let alone the new US, which is spreading very very thin now, by herself, along with the fact that the legitimacy of US global leadership has been seriously questioned globally.

Now then, the threats had long been there even before Clinton administration, they simply ignored it.

The great powers often fall into the trap of ignoring whatever they can at the time, and as long as they can, instead of facing them, until they can not ignore any longer.

Rule by common sense is probably better than any strict idealogical red lines.

Then again, common sense is hard to come by in the west, eyed from the east.