| |
 |
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
Reviews
A review of the arts and literature .....More
|
|
George W Bush: winning the war on terror
Europe's political elites are no
doubt salivating at the prospect of George W. Bush
departing the White House in January.
By Nile Gardiner, Guardian UK
On much of the world stage, President Bush has been
widely reviled as one of the worst U.S. leaders of
modern times, and it is hard to think of an American
president who has received a worse press since
Richard Nixon.
To his critics, who are legion on both sides of the
Atlantic, the war in Iraq has been a monumental
disaster, at a cost of more than 4,000 American
lives and at least $500 billion. They see the war on
terror, with the notorious Guantanamo prison camp as
its symbol, as a catalyst for radicalizing tens of
millions of Muslims that has made the United States
a pariah in the Middle East.
The war in Afghanistan, they argue, is going badly
in the face of a resurgent Taliban, the cost of
Washington pouring most of its resources into Iraq.
Bush, the theory goes, failed to keep his eye on the
ball, weakening the fight against al-Qaeda through
his supposed obsession with Iraq. He is also accused
of undermining America's standing in the world,
adopting a unilateralist foreign policy and refusing
to work with its Allies.
Some of the criticism of Bush's foreign policy is
fair. The early stages of the occupation of Iraq
were poorly handled and there was a distinct lack of
post-war planning. America's public diplomacy
efforts have been poor or even non-existent, with
little serious attempt to combat the stunning rise
of anti-Americanism. More recently, Washington's
failure to stand up more aggressively to Moscow
after its invasion of Georgia projected weakness and
indecision.
Much of the condemnation of his policies though is
driven by a venomous hatred of Bush's personality
and leadership style, rather than an objective
assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years
from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the
world stage in a more favourable light. America's
43rd president did after all directly liberate more
people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any
leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D.
Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the
decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to
have been a masterstroke. Today the world is
witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic
state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over
eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary
elections in 2005, and the region's first free
Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not
be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that
freedom can flourish in the embers of the most
brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.
The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in
history as a turning point in the war against
al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was
a major blow both militarily and psychologically for
the terror network. The West's most feared enemy
suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many
of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most
successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in
the world since the British victory in Malaya in
1960.
The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also
been a success. There has not been a single
terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for
all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes,
Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror
suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive
strategy actually worked.
Significantly, there have been no successful
terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005
London bombings, in large part due to the
cooperation between U.S., British and other Western
intelligence agencies. American intelligence has
proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned
terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration
of the value to Britain of its close ties to
Washington.
President Bush, in contrast to both his father,
George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a
crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the
importance of the Anglo-American Special
Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled
Bush's "poodle" over his support for the war in
Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked
the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since
the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan.
The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep
the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move,
one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A
weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations
Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement
with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was
vindicated by a stunning military victory in the
space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground
forces involved.
Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the
fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in
building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion
that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's
failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000
troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command,
making up over half of all Allied forces there.
Continental European allies have simply failed to
step up to the plate with more troops, with almost
the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S.,
UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan
is not a failure of American leadership, it is a
damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist
Europe that simply will not fight.
President Bush also recognized the importance of
re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century,
backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion,
culminating in the addition of seven new members in
2004. He also had the foresight to support the
development of a missile defence system in Europe,
successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and
the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the
eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO,
and both would be well on their way to membership
today were it not for the feckless decision of
France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking
their path to entry.
Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic
leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a
huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy,
the global war against Islamist terror, has left the
world a safer place, and his decision to project
global power and military might against America's
enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists
to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.
Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power
will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran
and North Korea included, will seek to militarily
challenge American power. The memory of the invasion
of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by
far the most effective deterrent to Tehran
developing a nuclear weapon.
If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a
willingness to wield power (as Britain did on
numerous occasions at the height of the Empire)
their hegemony will be increasingly challenged.
President Bush exercised U.S. military power to
stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an
important reminder that America was still a force to
be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of
Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against
Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and
challenges, the projection of hard power matters,
and America's next president would be wise to take
heed.
Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher
Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in
Washington, DC.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
SPONSORSHIP AD HERE |
|
|
|
|
|
