It has been five months now since people from all over the country gathered in Washington to watch the first black president get sworn into office, and as his honeymoon fades into history while the economy struggles, I cannot help but think about the guy in Texas that most people blame for this mess, and what exactly happened to him, and us, that led us to this point. So I wanted to reflect, for the first time with a little perspective, on what were the basic truths behind the Bush administration, issue for issue, and how they translated into presidential success or failure. Maybe some simplified retrospection will show critics and fans alike what was so bad or good about this man.

Afghanistan & National Security
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the former President stated that the U.S. would not distinguish between terrorists and states that sponsored them. This Bush Doctrine subsequently led to the war in Afghanistan, an overhaul of government, and more aggressive national security measures. There has been strong criticism that the war in Afghanistan has been a failure, and that these aggressive measures have made the world a more dangerous place.

Despite the inability to capture Osama Bin Laden, the U.S. and NATO forces pushed Al Qaeda and the Taliban back into the mountains of Pakistan, where they were impotent to orchestrate another major attack. For four years troops provided adequate protection for an interim government, but the government and country did not flourish. Since 2006 the Taliban insurgency has grown to violent disruptive levels, which is now causing instability in Pakistan. Bush diverted too many resources to Iraq to finish the job, but he did act swiftly, aggressively, and persistently in Afghanistan. He was unable to permanently secure the country, but he was successful in all but destroying Al Qaeda and liberating Afghanistan.

The effort and focus it took Bush to reshape the intelligence community was commendable and will have long lasting benefits. The NSA domestic spying program sounded intrusive, but there was little evidence of the federal government listening to common calls for malevolent purposes. The program was used to listen to suspicious phone calls in and out of the country, and was at times successful in thwarting terrorist plots. GITMO was a public relations nightmare, but a necessity due to the lack of better alternatives in holding and prosecuting enemy combatants in a time of war. The water boarding interrogation methods used at GITMO were scant and potentially effective. They were by no means the type of torture that you associate with war throughout history. Nevertheless, they were potentially unnecessary — other means might have been just as effective — and questionably immoral.

As for terrorist attacks worldwide, numbers were up during the Bush years, but not disproportionate to the existing trend. There were more terrorist attacks worldwide in Clinton’s last two years, than his previous six. Ultimately, Bush helped prevent future domestic attacks by unpopular means.

Iraq
Americans and the world judge the Bush presidency on Iraq. Historians will do so too. Most people say the war was unjust, without good motive, and without good consequence. They also say that the war was horribly mismanaged and recklessly executed at the hands of innocent civilians and loyal service men and women.

By 2003 the United Nations should have taken military action against the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein had come into power via murder, had practiced genocide, had invaded his neighbor, had launched missiles at one of our allies, and had failed to meet, for over 11 years, 19 straight resolutions pertaining specifically to weapons of mass destruction. Read that again and compare it to any other world leader today. But when the U.N. had failed to act definitively, was it right for the United States and the United Kingdom to take matters into their own hands? It is fair to say yes if the threat was mortal, direct, and imminent. The threat was obviously mortal. The Iraqi government had 1,000 tons of VX nerve gas, anthrax, and other ominous weapons unaccounted for. However, there was only weak information to suggest that the threat was direct or imminent.

It is perfectly reasonable to think, especially after September 11th, that a Hussein regime, based on its previous unpredictability and insolence, could have had weapons material in 2003 available for black market trade with terrorist factions that shared anti-U.S. sentiment. But to take action so decisively without more assurance of such a plot was irresponsible. Yet it was not just Bush who was irresponsible.  In the beginning, the U.S. public had overwhelming support for the war. Democratically elected leaders in the U.S. Congress, U.K., Spain, Australia, and Poland all supported the cause based on the same weak intelligence. Any claim that they or we were some how tricked or misled is a cop out.

Bush did a poor job in the beginning at managing the war. The initial strategy to remove the Hussein regime and create a democracy was presumptuous and careless. The geopolitical dynamic in Iraq required much more planning and resourcefulness. However, the decision by the former President to alter strategy and send more troops in the face of international and domestic opposition in 2006 was somewhat redeeming. Today deaths and attacks are down, Al Qaeda in Iraq is weakened, and a quasi-democratic state is in place. If Iraq does become a stabilizing Middle East ally in the 21st century, then Bush just might get some of the vindication he was looking for from historians.

Ultimately, Bush put U.S. servicemen and Iraqi civilians in a daunting situation, but he was not villainous. Baath Party loyalists were the ones to disrupt benevolent security operations and reconstruction efforts. Al Qaeda in Iraq were the ones to incite a civil war between Shia and Sunnis. Both groups bombed and took refuge in civilian clusters. The U.S. military did everything it could to prevent this chaos, not to instigate it.

Katrina
The popular criticism is that Bush bungled Katrina. He was not just inept in the face of the tragedy, but almost indifferent. While thousands of U.S. civilians were suffering and dying in the streets of a major American city, our president was flying around Air Force One, taking a seemingly chartered tour of the gulf coast.

The day before Hurricane Katrina hit, President Bush met with state and city officials. He declared a state of emergency, thus providing state and local officials with access to resources they might need, as long as they requested it. But when the hurricane hit, thousands of New Orleans citizens were stranded in the flooded city with little food, water, or security. The federal government expedited all resources to the area indiscriminately. The Coast Guard, under the order of the former President, did an outstanding job of pulling citizens off of rooftops.  Nevertheless, the response was delayed because of poor communication between the local and federal government. Bush was competent in his most basic duties, but he did not act with the swiftness and vigor he showed during the September 11th attacks.

Economy
People say that the former President grew the deficit to an amount that will strain the federal budget for years, that his deregulation led to the credit market freeze, and that he did little to reduce our dependence on oil, thus creating crippling gas prices.

The President of the United States is the ultimate steward of the economy, and President Bush left the economy in worse shape than when he took office. In 2007, average gas prices rose to over $3.40 per gallon. In 2008, the housing market, stock market, job market, and consumer confidence all crashed. He never took strong enough measures to thwart the corruption that led to investment in bad paper. However, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending guidelines put forth in the 1990’s, which he did actively oppose, had as much blame in the economic meltdown as anything else.

The budget deficit that Bush built and left the current President would appear as unacceptable until you consider the indiscriminate spending of the current President, or that most wartime presidents run such a deficit. Bush made unprecedented tax cuts across the board, in spite of the deficit, which played a large role in not just the economy’s meltdown at the end of his presidency, but its success in the beginning. Remember, Bush inherited a bad economy, yet stimulated production, job growth and investment throughout most of his two terms. Starting in 2002 there were 52 straight months of job growth. Unemployment during the heart of his presidency was at historic lows, while the stock market, home ownership, and domestic growth were at highs. In the end though, it all caught up with him.

Africa
Maybe the greatest success of the Bush presidency is the progress made in fighting disease and poverty in Africa. In 2003 the former President committed $15 billion over a five year period to turn the tide on AIDS and malaria in Africa. There is empirical data today that suggests he did just that. Now there are more treatments at lower costs for those ravaged by disease in sub-Saharan Africa. The administration instituted a creative, resourceful, and now apparently effective measure that tied aid to accountability, thus fighting corruption. Bush took on poverty and disease in Africa a generation before it could become the world’s biggest problem. Ironically, despite what Kanye West thinks, maybe no one has done more for black people in the last ten years than George Bush.

Other
Obviously there were more than just a few indictments on the Bush presidency. Bush had an immediate question of legitimacy stemming from a controversial first term election. He was portrayed as arrogant and foolish, and he was accused of abusing his executive powers. Many would say that because of these perceived flaws, and a wide range of poor diplomatic actions and policies, he alienated himself and America to the rest of the world. They would say he accomplished little but for his mistakes.

Conspiracy theories aside, Bush was a legitimate first term president. He won the initial vote in Florida, one recount, and 2 court rulings well within the law. And it would have been impractical to have subsequent recounts past the deadline set forth by the Florida State Constitution, and absurd to validate those recounts based on illegible ballots and perceived voter intent.

The former President was no doubt bold and often awkward, but he frequently took the high road when the media, other world leaders, and even people in his administration criticized him. It is hard to imagine another U.S. president, let alone world leader, being so gracious during the shoe throwing incident in Iraq, or during the transfer of power to Obama. I am not so sure he was relatively intelligent to the position of president because there was little evidence of cognitive prowess in his speech and pragmatism. However, I am not convinced he was an intellectual lightweight either. Bush was very knowledgeable of the duties and history of the presidency. Articulation is not the most significant indicator of intelligence.

Internationally, his allegiances with Putin and Musharraf were acts of poor judgment. Putin never made the democratic concessions in his own country that Bush wanted, and proved little support in much else. Musharraf exhibited similar shortcomings in the areas of democracy and the ability to help in the war on terror. Nevertheless, he was wise and successful in his dealings with China, India, and Colombia. Bush apologized for the shooting of a Chinese aircraft and attended the Olympics in the face of protest. He strengthened relations with India by forgiving their nuclear ambitions and by bringing them into the nuclear nonproliferation regime. And he helped Colombia and other parts of South and Central America fight drug wars and grow free trade.

Domestically, the former President’s agenda was ambitious and compromising, but met with resistance by congress and poor funding. Bush was idealistic and deliberate in pushing social security reform, only to be retarded by a congress more concerned with political expediency. He showed similar creativity and flexibility with immigration, allowing for a formalized path to citizenship for illegal aliens, only to be shot down by his own party. However, the Bush administration helped shape, propose, and launch a successful senior benefit drug program. Bush also raised standards in education with the widely criticized No Child Left Behind. Today the Department of Education shows that reading and math scores for American students continue to improve as a result.

History
President George W. Bush entered office in a recession. The country was then attacked not even a year into his presidency. During his two terms, five major hurricanes from Florida to Texas made land fall, and a brewing mortgage crisis from the inefficiencies of sub-prime lending finally spilled over into disaster. So in passing judgment, like in sports, let us first give him some credit based on degree of difficulty. In addition, when presidential historians rate and grade presidents, they give more credit to presidents that took on issues and failed than ones that did nothing at all. After looking at the major issues and then considering the rest, it is fair to say that this president falls into the former category of presidents rather than the latter.

The Bush presidency was one of many successes, but great failures. He overhauled homeland security and intelligence, changed the course in Iraq, cut taxes and grew the economy, brought hope to Africa, raised education standards, and advanced free trade in Central and South America. But he made a huge mistake in when and how he addressed the situation in Iraq in the first place. He looked detached during Katrina. And he did not foresee the impending economic disaster. Over time he could not make his case to the American people.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: politics & government, terror & war // 3 Comments »