Was Bush Right?

Posted By MJ

Since the January 30 elections in Iraq many, many people the world over have contemplated the thought: is Bush right?

I can’t help but to unwillingly throw myself into a pointless discussion about whether or not George W. Bush has outwitted us all.

The Neocons only needed to hear Bush declare during the invasion of Iraq that God was on our side in order to believe that Bush was right. The Conservatives, however, needed the elections in Iraq to prove that Bush has been right all along. But now since the movements in Lebanon, the improvements in the Israel/Palestine peace process and the relatively benign Bush trip to Europe have others started to consider the possibility that Bush is on to something.

I don’t want to sound so cynical here, because it is actually encouraging to read foreign media and not see so much anti-Americanism. It’s also interesting to see those who have so forthrightly opposed the American led invasion of Iraq debate their own dissents. However, if we have learned anything in the last 4 years it’s that rushing, whether it be to war, elections or to conclusions is usually not very clear-cut.

In the March 14 edition of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria writes an excellent essay discussing the very realms of where Bush was right. Zakaria, much like myself, has always maintained that the invasion of Iraq is a noble objective, and if done properly (the word properly entails a lot of different things) could reshape the world in profound and just ways. Zakaria uses a cautious approach by outlining things that Bush has been right about, things Bush has been disgustingly wrong about and things Bush has had no control over which have played into his favor. I think an honest assessment of the Bush tenure entails all three categories of right, wrong and lucky.

Shortly after January 30, pundits began discussing what it would mean if Bush were right. On February 23, Der Spiegel, a leading German weekly, ran an essay comparing Bush’s 2005 Europe trip to Reagan’s now famous 1987 trip in which he called for the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. Then, a complacent Europe shrugged off the concept of Germany ever being reunited, only to see the Wall be torn down two years later. Even in happy-go-lucky Canada (yes the Canada that is opposite of anything American) op-eds began to reflect the assumption that just maybe Bush is changing the world for the better. And the self-proclaimed perfect Guardian of Britain was at a loss for words as well.

The hype of people painfully declaring that Bush was right is just as short lived as the “Mission Accomplished” banner of Bush’s first term. Within days, the rhetoric was back to blasting Bush and the unintelligent Americans for everything that is wrong in the world.

So, was Bush right? Not hardly, or at least not completely.

It’s all about events. And most events no one has any control over.

I have to conclude with Zakaria, because he can do it so much better than me.

“For most countries, the debate over Iraq was not really about Iraq. It was about how America would wield its enormous global power. And to many countries, it seemed that the Bush administration was doing it irresponsibly. On this front, the signs from Bush's second term are heartening. In the Middle East, however, everything will depend on success on the ground. If, five years from now, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps an independent Palestine and a democratic Lebanon are thriving countries with modern political and economic systems, America will be honored and respected‹and the talk of anti-American terror will have dissipated considerably. If, on the other hand, these countries are chaotic and troubled‹more like Central Asia than Central Europe‹people there will blame America. Remember, all politics is local.”

There has to something right in that paragraph.