Post-mortum on the Bush Presidency - Part II

(See Part One of Post-Mortum on the Bush Presidency first for better understanding of this post)

Only historians will be able to more fully explain the failed George W Bush presidency and the oddity that even as a failure - there was a second term.

Contemporary presidential historians are saying this is a tough one to analyze, because the president was unpopular but was re-elected. The consensus seems to be that he was re-elected because of the country's continued fear of terrorism, that the Bush handlers played the terrorism card to the max. The people were uncertain if the Bush administration was fighting terrorism correctly, particularly with the Iraq war, but did not want to take any chances. The group who see George Bush as promoting better morals still played. They liked George W Bush less than in 2000, but liked Kerry even less. Some voted for Bush because they want him to finish what he started in Iraq. Contemporary historians are saying the Bush political handlers, ie. Carl Rove are political geniuses at work, even if some of their methods are Machiavellian.

So as it is, George Bush has maintained his power by default. His handlers were able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. George W Bush, not known for his intellect, claimed a reserve of "political capital" with his re-election. A simple look at the vote count would tell him there was no reserve of political capital, the same as the year 2000 as the popular vote was again close and that his best method of governing would be to unite.

His claim to a reserve of political capital was disastrous in its consequences as he lived under the impression the people approved of how he was leading the country. He continued the obsession with Iraq, made a misguided attempt to reform social security while he was really, politically bankrupt. The needs of the country were ignored and thus the deteriorating infrastructure of the country went unattended, the response (or more accurately stated, non-response) to hurricane Katrina was very telling, as was the recognition of rapidly diminishing non-renewable sources of energy and concerns of global warming.

However, the greater folly of the George W Bush presidency was a complete absence of knowledge and understanding of the country and culture in Iraq, and the Middle East for that matter. He did not understand the secular Saddam Hussien who once lived ( white shirt and western tie) and Osama Bin Laden, the most prominent terrorist leader in the world were natural enemies. If capturing Bin Laden was not to be, smarter geopolitical thinking would have been to allow Saddam Hussien and Bin Laden deal with each other. Neither had the capability to launch a nuclear bomb. Iraq is religious sectarian and Al-Quida are fanatical using terrorist tactics. Both are pre-dark ages in their thinking. A struggle for influence over the middle east, a struggle between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden would surely have been a war of attrition. One can be certain Saddam Hussien would have known how to deal with Bin Laden.

George W Bush, borrowing from WWII definitions of the Allied and Axis powers came up with the disingenuous definition "the Axis of Evil. All he achieved with this was angering South Korea whom relations with North Korea were showing some mild signs of thaw. He handed Iran another reason to rally around the "hate America" extremists. He approached the present age of "asymmetrical war with a faceless enemy" with WWII tactics of bombs (we all remember shock and awe) - the war was not prosecuted properly from a military standpoint. Thus the failure to understand military strategy and refusal to accept advice of experienced military minds resulted in war tactics we did no know how to properly implement. Moveover, the Bush presidency did not have an overall strategic plan, including how to get out.

This is a critical time in the world where things are changing rapidly, China is emerging as an economic power. The U.S. is stuck in a black hole in Iraq and cannot get out without losing moral legitimacy in the world. Nuclear weapons are getting closer to rogue nations - many with 12th century mentalities. Not only can oceans be easily be crossed, but nuclear weaponry can arrive in minutes.

As mentioned, there are other unrelated issues of diminishing non-renewable sources of energy that are not getting full attention because we are caught up in Iraq. Global warming, if it exists is going unattended. Thus, as mentioned in Part l of this essay, the history of the U.S. will be written in time frames of "before the George W Bush presidency and "after.

After the George W Bush presidency, the pressing problems the U.S. will have to face is re-gaining moral legitimacy in the world which could take decades (Vietnam, with less serious repercussions took 30 years), controlling nuclear weapons, controlling terrorism in the world, resolving the non-renewable sources of energy problem with re-newable sources, and to try minimize global warming. These things take enormous time and energy, the things a great nation and leading power should be doing.

Referencing Part I of this blog of January, 2007, it must be heart wrenching for George H Bush Senior. A very capable president himself, he now has to live with that ever dreadful thought that you can be a great success in your field of occupation, but if you fail as a parent, your life has been a failure. Paving the roads for the son robbed him of the experience he needed to be a leader, resulted in him not applying himself in school and with substandard intellect, he substituted astute observation and analysis of the world with ideology and reliance on subordinates who did not serve him well. We are reminded of Lyndon Johnson's advisers and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

To conclude, I cannot do it better than Richard Rodriguez, a contemporary essayist. He says, "History does not always test the powerful. Potentially great leaders fade into obscurity because they do not preside over calamity. But pity the powerful who are tested by history -- and fail." We can only wonder what historians will say 50 years from now.

(Originally published July 24, 2007, on former MySpace blog)