Bush, a great President?

The foreign editor, Greg Sheridan, of The Australian newspaper gives his opinion on George Bush's legacy against terrorism in this article.

Some key sections:

LET me be the first to offer a bold, revisionist view. George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in foreign policy, especially in the war on terror. This consensus won't form for 20 or perhaps 30 years.

Bush understands much better than his critics the war on terror and the way the world works more broadly. Above all, he has had the courage to confront reality. The key planks of the Bush doctrine - regarding terrorists not as criminals but as a force at war with the US and its allies; holding state sponsors of terror responsible for the actions of their terrorist surrogates; seeing the root of terror in the profoundly dysfunctional political culture of the Middle East and fighting the ideas behind terror with an agenda of democracy and human rights; reserving the right to take pre-emptive military action against threats that could involve weapons of mass destruction - all these will be maintained by Bush's presidential successors.

One of Bush's key decisions, and this was truly the insight of the much derided neo-conservatives, was that the status quo ante in the Middle East did not produce stability but produced growing terrorism. I believe Bush was right to take action against Iraq and Australia was right to join this action, in part because everyone believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also because Saddam was the most prolific state murderer of the second half of the 20th century and threatened his neighbours. He also supported much international terrorism and rejoiced in the al-Qa'ida attacks of 9/11. The danger of his co-operating in WMDs with terrorists was great.

None of this is to diminish the Bush mistakes: the fatal disunity between the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department in the first administration, the lack of post-conflict planning and many other errors in Iraq.

But any strategy by any president in the Middle East would look messy. Much of the judgment on Bush is absurdly unrealistic in its failure to acknowledge that the enemy gets a say in what the battlefield looks like. The war on terror is an epic struggle. Any epic struggle you care to think of - the US Civil War, World War II, the Cold War - involved many mistakes and many lost battles. All war, including the war on terror, is very, very messy. It is not conducted in bow ties by well-mannered air forces, shaking hands first and then meeting for well-ordered battles off shore and far up in the sky.

I agree with his article about Bush's foreign policy. I was about give my take on it but this person's comment about it on The Australian's website captures my thoughts exactly.

Sheridan is right again; he will be roundly lashed for this, but he is right. Bush’s biggest weakness has been his inability to communicate with the broader international community. However, he is a transformational president for transformational times. He will be remembered, more likely than not, fondly, for linking political freedom and development to security outcomes. Iraq is a disaster, but it will fade, and what will be left will be a new security architecture, designed by so-called neo-cons, that will produce a more prosperous and secure world.Well done, Dubya, and don’t listen to those short-sighted nay-sayers on the left and the right.