Skip to main content

George W flunks the test

Whilst Americans have this rather odd veneration for the institution of their Presidency, the present incumbent is much on the nose. The opinion polls rate him poorly. Even that aside, many people pour scorn on the intellectual capacity - some would even ask what intellectual capacity? - of George W. That he isn't all that bright has been demonstrated in many ways during his presidency.

Steven Casey is senior lecturer in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In a talk at the Lowy Institute he assessed George W. Based on that talk the SMH published an op-ed piece on Casey's score-card for the US President:

"As the Bush presidency approaches its final year, George Bush and his allies are turning their minds towards the verdict of history. How will historians judge him? Will they be kinder than contemporaries? The answer, it is clear, will be a resounding no.

True, historians will not carry the same baggage as the partisans of today. They will have the benefit of distance. But, ultimately, they will compare Bush to other war presidents of American history. And this is very bad news for Bush.

It is tempting to begin with the easy analogy. The only other 20th century president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, has been given low marks for his Vietnam record. Like Bush, he plunged the US into war on a flimsy pretext, then saw his opinion ratings slide as the conflict bogged down in a debilitating stalemate, before handing over the whole inconclusive mess to his successor. Historians have judged Johnson harshly; surely they will mete out the same treatment to Bush.

Yet in one crucial area, this analogy breaks down. As a war leader, Johnson's central flaws were at the tactical level: he tried to micromanage the fighting. For all his faults, Bush will never be indicted on this score.

Bush's flaws are much graver. They have been at the strategic, rather than tactical, level. Whereas Johnson inherited the Vietnam mess from Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy and could see no easy way out, after September 11 Bush operated from a strategic clean slate. It was his responsibility to set the basic direction for the so-called war on terror. And it is here that his record compares most unfavourably with his predecessors."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more