The foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush

[Jrrarglblarg]

Afghanistan was a tactical attack with no strategic goals. And Shinseki made us all wear berets, a ****** object that performs no useful hat functions while simultaneously offending the Rangers who earned it.

 

[Upchurch]

Afghanistan was a tactical attack with no strategic goals. And Shinseki made us all wear berets, a ****** object that performs no useful hat functions while simultaneously offending the Rangers who earned it.

I'll take you're word on that last bit.

The premise of going into Afghanistan, at least, made sense. It sounds like we were reasonably sure that bin Laden was there at the time. Again, that may have ultimately been wrong, but the action made sense.

Shifting focus to Iraq at that time and in that context was a complete non-seqitur. It made no sense, diverted focus from the problem at hand, and ultimately made things worse than they were.

 

[sunmaster14]

...Any time now.

You serious? Do you not think the Vietnam War was a greater mistake than the Iraq War? How about our failure to mitigate the onerous conditions of the Versailles Treaty after WWI? How about failing to anticipate that the Japanese would attack us after we placed an oil embargo on them in 1941? How about failing to intervene earlier in Europe to contain Germany and prevent the destruction of European Jews? How about allowing Eastern Europe to slip under the control of the Soviet Union after WWII? How about failing to prevent the Soviet Union from acquiring an atomic bomb in record time? Or the Chinese thereafter, and then India and Pakistan? How about failing to anticipate Chinese intervention in the Korean War? Sheesh, that's only the last 100 years. The Iraq War, even if you consider it to be a major screwup (which I don't), doesn't compare to past foreign policy failures. And who even knows what the counterfactual would be? Saddam Hussein in a nuclear arms race with Iran? That would be just great!

 

[Upchurch]

Let's not forget the topic of the thread, which is W. Bush's foreign policy legacy.

As far as torture goes, I don't think there are any legitimate arguments against the fact that the Bush Administration's ordering torture was just about as illegal as it could be.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Let's not forget the topic of the thread, which is W. Bush's foreign policy legacy.

As far as torture goes, I don't think there are any legitimate arguments against the fact that the Bush Administration's ordering torture was just about as illegal as it could be.

Correct.

 

[NoahFence]

Bush legacy?

 

[Meadmaker]

Bush legacy?

When it comes to foreign policy, torture, unlawful detention, the war on terror, and the current state of the middle east are all part of the Bush legacy.

I don't see how you could possibly discuss his legacy without reference to those things. Did he do anything else?

 

[NoahFence]

I don't want torture to be legal. Does this mean you agree with my point about lack of preeminence of treaties?

Returning to Bush Legacy in 3...2... 1...

??

 

[Tricky]

When it comes to foreign policy, torture, unlawful detention, the war on terror, and the current state of the middle east are all part of the Bush legacy.

I don't see how you could possibly discuss his legacy without reference to those things. Did he do anything else?

Caused a recession? (Okay, not strictly foreign policy, but certainly there are international components.)

 

[pgwenthold]

Caused a recession? (Okay, not strictly foreign policy, but certainly there are international components.)

You know, there is one thing about Bush that no one ever talks about, and it surprises me.

When Bush became president, gas prices were about 1.65/gallon. During his time as president, gas prices shot up to over $4 a gallon, and oil companies made record profits. Bush left office, and gas prices settled, and while you can debate whether they are sustainable at their current levels (they probably aren't, and will climb again), we are still a long way off from a $4/gal becoming something standard. More in the mid-$2s, probably, which would be maybe at the high end of historic price levels, with inflation, but nothing extreme.

It always surprises me that Bush doesn't get more scrutiny for the massive profits by his oil business buddies while he was president.

it's not so much foreign policy legacy, more of a domestic legacy, but I will always remember Bush as the president who first saw gas prices shoot over $4/gallon in the US, and oversaw record profits for the oil companies. And given his background, I don't think that is good association to have.

 

[Crossbow]

You know, there is one thing about Bush that no one ever talks about, and it surprises me.

When Bush became president, gas prices were about 1.65/gallon. During his time as president, gas prices shot up to over $4 a gallon, and oil companies made record profits. Bush left office, and gas prices settled, and while you can debate whether they are sustainable at their current levels (they probably aren't, and will climb again), we are still a long way off from a $4/gal becoming something standard. More in the mid-$2s, probably, which would be maybe at the high end of historic price levels, with inflation, but nothing extreme.

It always surprises me that Bush doesn't get more scrutiny for the massive profits by his oil business buddies while he was president.

it's not so much foreign policy legacy, more of a domestic legacy, but I will always remember Bush as the president who first saw gas prices shoot over $4/gallon in the US, and oversaw record profits for the oil companies. And given his background, I don't think that is good association to have.

Several years ago, I wrote a Forum post concerning that stupid, idiotic, liar George W. Bush and the vast profits that were being made by the oil companies at the time where I said something like:

Bush was a failure in the oil business when he was in the oil business, but he finally figured out how to make vast amounts of money in the oil business by starting an entirely unnecessary war, killing tens of thousands people, and driving the national economy into the toilet.

 

[Upchurch]

You serious?

Iraq was certainly the greatest foreign policy mistake of my lifetime, which would narrows out your whole list.

The Iraq War, even if you consider it to be a major screwup (which I don't), doesn't compare to past foreign policy failures. And who even knows what the counterfactual would be? Saddam Hussein in a nuclear arms race with Iran? That would be just great!

An arms race that we know, at least from Iraq's side, was all smoke and mirrors.

 

[sunmaster14]

Iraq was certainly the greatest foreign policy mistake of my lifetime, which would narrows out your whole list.


An arms race that we know, at least from Iraq's side, was all smoke and mirrors.

By 1991, Iraq was quite close to developing a nuclear bomb. That kind of knowledge and expertise does not simply disappear because of inspections and sanctions. In addition, the biggest bottleneck was probably centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment, but A Q Khan was busy selling that to anybody and everybody until he was shut down (a direct consequence of the Iraq War, by the way).

No Iraq War, Saddam stays in power, along with his nuclear ambitions, the sanctions erode, Qaddafi doesn't give up his nuclear program (for fear of being next on Bush's hit list), A Q Khan keeps selling centrifuge technology, etc. etc.

By now, the Middle East could have been a radioactive wasteland. Thank goodness, Ralph Nader decided to run in 2000.

 

[Upchurch]

By 1991, Iraq was quite close to developing a nuclear bomb. That kind of knowledge and expertise does not simply disappear because of inspections and sanctions. In addition, the biggest bottleneck was probably centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment, but A Q Khan was busy selling that to anybody and everybody until he was shut down (a direct consequence of the Iraq War, by the way).

And 12 years later, not only did they not have a nuclear weapon, they still didn't have the capacity to build one. In fact, they appear to have been further away than what you describe.

No Iraq War, Saddam stays in power, along with his nuclear ambitions, the sanctions erode, Qaddafi doesn't give up his nuclear program (for fear of being next on Bush's hit list), A Q Khan keeps selling centrifuge technology, etc. etc.

By now, the Middle East could have been a radioactive wasteland. Thank goodness, Ralph Nader decided to run in 2000.

I can make up alt history, too. Still isn't evidence.

The Bush Administration lied its hiney off to get the US into a war that had no provided no strategic benefit for us, that diminished our standing in the world, and has made the middle-east situation significantly less stable than it had been, which is saying something.

 

[pgwenthold]

The Bush Administration lied its hiney off to get the US into a war that had no provided no strategic benefit for us, that diminished our standing in the world, and has made the middle-east situation significantly less stable than it had been, which is saying something.

Were any of Colin Powell's claims in his speech to the UN confirmed to be true after the invasion?

 

[Tricky]

Several years ago, I wrote a Forum post concerning that stupid, idiotic, liar George W. Bush and the vast profits that were being made by the oil companies at the time where I said something like:

Bush was a failure in the oil business when he was in the oil business, but he finally figured out how to make vast amounts of money in the oil business by starting an entirely unnecessary war, killing tens of thousands people, and driving the national economy into the toilet.

His first business success came in purchasing a large share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. He then used his political connection and family ties to ram through a stadium tax deal which doubled (or more) the value of his shares. That's right, his greatest success was in Corporate Welfare.

And it is amusing that one of his failed ventures was an oil company propped up with daddy's dollars. He called it "Arbusto", which he understood was Spanish for "Bush", but actually translates closer to "Shrub", which is why Molly Ivens called him The Shrub in most of her writings.

 

[Upchurch]

Were any of Colin Powell's claims in his speech to the UN confirmed to be true after the invasion?

Well, I'm prepared to believe that he sincerely was thankful that the people he testified to made the effort to be there.

I also know he deeply regretted giving that testimony.

 

[Tony Stark]

Saddam was complying with the 2002 UNSC resolution demanding that he let inspectors into the country. That didn't have any affect on the administration. In fact they invaded before inspectors could finish their investigation. Probably because they were afraid that it would undermine their case for war.

The war was never about WMDs. They knew perfectly well that Saddam would never dare attack the US as doing so would lead to his country being destroyed and him being killed. Them claiming that Iraq's supposed WMDs were a threat to the US was a Big Lie designed to ellicit public support for a war.

Similary, when neocons claim that Iranian leaders are so fanatical that they want to nuke Israel and/or the US and thus bring about the destruction of their country and their deaths, they are lying.

The real reason for the war in Iraq and the future war the neocons hope they can start with Iran is because they have an ideologically driven belief that the US can and should transform the Middle East through military force. Their backers in the oil and "defense" industries profiting from this doesn't hurt either.

The Iran deal eliminating their justification for war with Iran is thus the prime reason for their fanactical opposition to it (along with the general Republican desire to make sure that Obama achieves nothing that the public will see as positive).

 

[Agatha]

200 posts have been split to another thread entitled Torture and the Constitution as they were centred on the legality of torture rather than being specifically related to the legacy of GWB. As is common with large splits, there may be posts which have been moved unnecessarily and others which were not moved but should have been. Please let a mod know if more moves are needed.

Posted By: Agatha

 

[Jango]

I was just thinking about this today, so I figured I'd start a thread on this subject.

What do you think the second President Bush's ultimate legacy will be, at home and around the world? Will history be kinder to him than many observers have been (particularly - but certainly not exclusively - non-American ones)? Or will future generations have as low (if not lower) of a collective view of his policies as many do now?
Leaving aside for a moment the many harsh criticisms that I (and many others, obviously) certainly have about Bush's foreign policy, I think one quite positive legacy of his is the work his administration did in raising more awareness and focusing more foreign policy attention in general on the plight of sub-Saharan Africa. I also think, without saying anything else about how horrible the situation in Iraq and the Middle East is (and has been for a decade or so now), it's undeniable that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his sons.

What is known right now is unforgivable already, so why would it 'possibly' get better?

But it will probably be much lower as years progress because of new information being declassified, be it automatically or through FOIA, just as information about other foreign policy regimes of past Presidents has given historians a more complete picture of a very secretive job and decision-making process carried out by some terrible human beings, like the "joys" the Nixon tapes have brought this country.

When Nixon was in charge, people knew he was strange, but with the tapes we get to hear the leader of the free world, the most powerful man in the world, in all his racist, drunkenly paranoid and genocidal self when he spoke with his inner circle of yes-men and periphery decision-makers.

But many U.S. historians are too "polite" to call men like Nixon or Bush what they are: tyrants. What Bush has done abroad will not soon be forgotten by foreigners or by us because we're still fighting blowback from his disastrous foreign policy, which was itself being fought on top of the blowback created by several previous administrations when their disastrous foreign policies were killing people wide and far and destroying lives on a vast scale.