He has taken the side of Sadrists killers against their tortured victims. That is how history will remember him

We are living in critical times. Anything less than ideal is bound to fail. Look at Catholic Church in pre-1914 Europe-played with Nationlism and got burned

I like Bush, but I can't ever see him being remembered as more transformative than Reagan. I don't believe they are even in the same league. In the 1970's the ship was headed in entirely the wrong direction. Reagan achieved an about-face and placed both economic and foreign policy on a path that I believe history will completely vindicate.

While I admire what Bush has done in taking the fight to the terrorists (few Presidents would have had the guts to do so), remember that he has an $11 trillion dollar economy to work with (thanks largely to Reagan), and a military that dwarfs any other in the world (again thanks to Reagan).

Maybe it is true that Bush has been able "to get more done" from a policy perspective, but like scientists who came after Newton, they saw further because they were standing on the shoulders of a giant.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. Bush will get credit for things that Reagan wasn't in a position to even try. Reagan also proposed Social Security privatization---and got himself slammed hard by fellow Republican Gerald Ford in the '75 primary! And basically dropped the issue.

Bush will get credit for starting the reform of SS, though it will have to wait for a future administration. He will get credit for making the issue one that can be seriously debated!

Which is true, but he is fortunate to be living at a time that is pregnant with the need for change.

He has taken the side of Sadrists killers against their tortured victims. That is how history will remember him

Nonsense. That's like saying Lincoln is remembered to history for siding with the slave holders against the slaves. Yes, he overruled his generals when they emancipated slaves in their jurisdictions, even fired General Fremont for not rescinding his emancipation order in 1861 - Lincoln forced slaves to stay in bondage! But only a fool would say Lincoln is remembered for siding with slave owners.

Don't forget another item W accomplished but Reagan tried and failed at: missile defense. W actually got a national missile defense system operational.

It was much less ambitious than Reagan's, and it's the result of a lot of research initiated by Reagan, but W's is operational now, and Reagan's will never be. That's got to count for something.

Mike

It's heartening to know I'm not the only one who continues to hold faith in GWB and believes he'll be remembered well, eventually. A particularly striking similarity between him and Reagan is their determination to do what they believe is right and not worry about what people say or think. Thank heavens there are still people like them, few though they may be.

I think history will eventually be kind to Bush, but it is too early to say how kind. It would be like trying to evaluate Reagan in '86 - before the Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed, and a Democratic president was in the White House saying things like, "The era of big government is over", and "let's end welfare as we know it".

I believe that Bush will be judged almost solely on his strategy in the War on Terror. The use of Democracy as a weapon will define that strategy, and by, say, 2015 or 2020 we should know if it worked.

Yes he would be judged on his strategy in the Terror War. Would you care to comment on this article by Podhoretz making the same point that the US Govt had
an utopian strategy that ended (as utopian schemes do) being US Govt standing along with the killers.

________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ON IRAQ
By JOHN PODHORETZ

December 5, 2006—THE most common cliché about the war in Iraq is now this: We didn’t have a plan, and now everything is in chaos; we didn’t have a plan, and now we can’t win.

This is entirely wrong. We did have a plan—the problem is that the plan didn’t work. And of course we can win—we just have to choose to do so.

The problem with our plan is that it wasn’t actually a military plan.

We thought a political process inside Iraq would make a military push toward victory against a tripartite foe—Saddamist remnants, foreign terrorists and anti-American Shiites—unnecessary.

Yes, we’d stay in Iraq and fight the bad guys when we had to, which seemed mostly to be when they decided to attack us first. Our resolve was intended to give the Iraqi people the sense that they were being given control of their future, and to give Iraqi politicians the sense that they had a chance to forge a new kind of country in which everybody could prosper.

For this reason, we relented on several occasions when we had a chance to score a major victory over the bad guys. Because politics was more important than military victory, because playing the game was more important than killing the enemy, we chose to lose.

After the beheading of Americans in Fallujah, we had the city surrounded—but, because it seemed an attack on Fallujah would be problematic for Iraqi politics, we pulled back. We had the Shiite monster Moqtada al-Sadr in our sights as well, but let him go as well for fear Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric would turn on us.

Each of these decisions seemed prudent at the time. In retrospect, they seem disastrous. Our failure to take Fallujah after the deaths of Americans gave the enemy the sense that we were weak. Our failure to kill Sadr has led to a situation in which he has excessive power over the elected government.

Still, the theory of how to prevail in Iraq made sense as a theory. What, after all, were the Saddamists and the terrorists fighting for? Clearly there would be no restoration of Saddam’s cruel reign, and they couldn’t score a battlefield victory against us. That’s why Dick Cheney and others referred to them as “dead-enders”—because they were and are dead-enders. They had no achievable goal for securing power in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people were voting in elections—8 million in the first, 10 million in the second, 12 million in the third. They created a new political class where there’d been none before.

Once an actual Iraqi government was up and running, we expected the political progress to choke off the oxygen of the dead-enders. With an Iraq hurtling into the future, they would melt away because there was nothing for them to gain.

What’s more, there was nothing in it for the Saddamists—Sunnis all—to provoke a civil war, because they’d lose. Shiites outnumber Sunnis 2-1, and there are as many Kurds and Sunnis.

So that was the plan. We didn’t have to win against our foes: The Iraqi people were going to defeat them.

In other words, we were standing the Iraqis up so we could stand down.

Sound familiar? That is the prescription for leaving Iraq that’s on everyone’s lips—Democrats, Republicans, the Baker-Hamilton group.

And guess who else? Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, Bush’s very own defense secretary clearly believed this was the way to go. In his classified memo, leaked to The New York Times over the weekend, Rummy says it’s time for the Iraqis to “pull up their socks.” We should pull back so the Iraqis don’t depend on us to secure their future.

That was not a new idea for him or the administration. In May 2003, a senior administration official told me it was “time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate.”

That’s nice. But the Iraqis can’t “step up to the plate,” and they can’t “pull up their socks.” The plan envisioned that they could do so whenever they chose. The plan said their political progress would be the way for them to reach the plate and reach their socks.

The plan failed.

So we need a new plan. But the Baker-Hamilton advice isn’t a new plan. The Democrats don’t have a new plan. The only plan that will work is a plan to face the tripartite enemy—the Saddamists, the foreign terrorists and the Shiite sectarians—and bring them to heel.

Kill as many bad guys as we can, with as many troops as we can muster.

If this is unrealistic, then Iraq is lost.

If we can’t win, then we lose.

Political change doesn’t win wars. That’s what we’ve learned, painfully and horribly. Only winning wars wins wars.

President Bush needs to decide, as soon as possible, that he is going to win this war—that the bad guys are going to die, that we are going to kill them and that we will achieve our objectives in Iraq. That is the only way forward for him if he doesn’t want to end up in ignominy.

The clock is ticking. He has only a week, maybe two, to change course dramatically. To choose to win, and to direct the military to do so.

Or we are sunk, and so is he.

standing along with the killers..." Who are you referring to? Dou you mean Shi'ites (militias etc) are killers and Sunnis are innocent victims? Or what? We have at least 3 deadly factions oprating in Iraq. So how can one group be "the killers?"

My guess--I could be mistaken--is that Podhoretz has it wrong. It's easy to say "kill the bad guys," but not easy to do. They are none of them operating out in the open. Any group we try to hit will hide, disperse, wait to fight again another day.

There are 6 million people in Bagdhad! How the hell are a few thousand clueless Americans going to locate a few thousand local bad guys on their own ground?

WE can't do it. Our only hope is the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people.

And I don't agree that the plan has failed. That the level of violence is considered intolerable by American pundits is the wrong measure. It does not seem to be intolerable to Iraqis. As long as they are willing to continue trying, then the fight is not lost.

40,000 americans are killed in car accidents every year. Does this mean "driving" is a lost cause, and that we ought to "pull out?"

Bisaal - you're reading your own opinion into the Podhoretz piece. He's arguing that this was a failed strategy - he says nothing about utopian, says nothing about standing with killers. I could agree with Podhoretz and still find your assertions regarding Bush's legacy to be utter flights of fancy.

Nonetheless, I think Podhoretz is way, way off. First of all, he asserts that we've failed. Assertion is NOT a substitute for argument. Stating "the plan failed" without giving any arguments leaves me at a loss to argue against him. I can guess where he gets it - that people in Iraq still hate each other and are killing one another - but is that his measure? If so, then America has failed as an independent nation. Hell, Great Britain has failed as an independent nation. Or is he arguing about the magnitude of hatred and killing? If so, what measures would indicate success to him?

It's all slippery bullshit - he's not giving us enough data to argue against him, he's just asserting things.

And he's asserting utter mindless nonsense - like this: Political change doesn’t win wars. That’s what we’ve learned, painfully and horribly. Only winning wars wins wars. WTF is he talking about? Political change doesn't win wars? Is he insane? He makes up an axiom that is absurd on its face, and we're supposed to take him seriously?

Or how about this gem? The clock is ticking. He has only a week, maybe two, to change course dramatically. Er, which clock is that? What makes December 12th through the 19th so special? Is it that the AFC Wildcard race will finally start to take shape (hopefully with a Bengals upset of the Colts on Monday Night Football on the 18th)? He just makes this stuff up...

So, in conclusion, Podhoretz's article does not speak to your point; and his article is a truckload of assertions masquerading as arguments. And I stand by my historical comparison above - arguing that Bush "has taken the side of Sadrists killers against their tortured victims. That is how history will remember him" is as foolish as thinking Lincoln is remembered as taking the side of slave holders.

And by the way, one more point - saying that we have not yet failed doesn't mean that we are certain to succeed...even if we had 100% support from the American people, what we're trying to do is convince a foreign nation that one course is wiser than another. I'm with Reagan in believing the yearning for freedom is universal in humans, and I believe that's our strongest weapon - but that doesn't mean it'll be strong enough in this situation.

But the point is, we have to try. Defeating an enemy is insufficient - we can do that at any time. But to be secure in the long run, over generations, we need to transform the entire Middle East. No other solution will work in the long term. Now, perhaps increased troop levels or looser rules of engagement or perhaps more diplomacy or tighter rules of engagement would help that effort in Iraq - that's what we can spend all day debating. But in the big picture, we need Iraq to step up. That is the goal, that is the strategy, and that is our only option. Well, that or else occupying the world.

Podhoretz has a strategy for lowering the violence in Iraq. But he doesn't even consider how to win the war - how to transform the Middle East. If we do the first and fail at the second, then we'll have failed.

Bisaal,

Thanks for the Podhoretz link - I hadn't read that and I'm glad I have now. I agree with much of what he says, probably more than John does.

As to your comment about my comment please note that I said Bush will be judged on his strategy in the War on Terror, not the war in Iraq. I'm not hiding behind semantics here, I chose those words carefully. In fact, I considered making the point in the original post that Iraq could be a failure and the overall strategy in the War on Terror (Democracy as a weapon - as our host has put it) could still be a success. I chose not to because I try to keep my posts as short as I can and still make my point.

I would encourage you to answer his question - what do you mean by the U.S. "standing with the killers"? If there is a civil war in Iraq, it is not much of an oversimplification to say, "The Sunni's started it!" That does not justify the wanton brutality of the Shi'ite militias, but the Sunni's are not innocent victims here.

Even at this late stage the Sunni's could still come to the U.S. and say, "We have minority status in this new government and we don’t trust the Shi’ites. Can you help us secure our rights and safety going forward? If you will, we will cooperate." Do you honesstly believe the U.S. would ignore such a request? Hardly "standing with the killers".

"Defeating an enemy is insufficient - we can do that at any time."
Typical American arrogance--and that will cost Americans and the free world dearly.

Thanks for dodging a host of points.

And yes, name me a military that can stand up to the US military. China? Perhaps. But they aren't one of the screwed up cleptocratic regimes from the Middle East. We can take out Iran, can take out Syria, can take out any military enemy over there. We took out what was regarded as the strongest army in the region in weeks. Twice. And this is arrogance?

Bisaal, if you're going to reduce all of this to an out-of-context snark, which is itself flat wrong, I don't think either of us will find it very productive.