Economist: Was George Bush Right?

[Westbrook36]

http://www.economist.com/node/18063852

As Egypt erupts, his Arab “freedom agenda” is suddenly looking a little cleverer

BY THE scratchy standards of American politics, Democrats and Republicans left their differences at the water’s edge as Barack Obama picked his careful way through his Egypt conundrum this week. The administration had handled the situation “pretty well”, said John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives. Anyway, why pick new fights when there is such fun to be had raking over old ones?

From the moment it became clear that something big was under way in Egypt, it was inevitable that America would relitigate the case of George Bush and Iraq. As Egyptians thronged the streets, Mr Bush’s defenders flocked into print to argue that the Arabs’ newly evident hunger for democracy vindicated the former president’s “freedom agenda” in the Middle East. Did not Mr Bush topple Saddam Hussein, a far more monstrous dictator than Hosni Mubarak? Did he not try his best to push America’s authoritarian allies to move towards democracy?

Mr Bush was indeed a far more active champion of democracy than Mr Obama has been. In 2005 his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, gave a startling speech in Cairo in which she said that having spent 60 years pursuing stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East, and achieving neither, America was henceforth supporting the democratic aspirations of all people. True to its word, the Bush administration nagged, scolded, bribed and bullied its allies towards greater democracy. The Americans leant on Egypt to hold more open elections in 2005, and in 2006 they talked an astonished Israel into letting Hamas contest Palestinian elections in the occupied territories. Even the Saudis were prevailed on to hold some (men only) local elections. All this was based on a particular theory, the post-9/11 neoconservative conclusion that the root cause of terrorism was the absence of Arab democracy. “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” said Mr Bush.

Why revisit this history now? Because with people-power bursting out all over the Arab world, the experts who scoffed at Mr Bush for thinking that Arabs wanted and were ready for democracy on the Western model are suddenly looking less clever—and Mr Bush’s simple and rather wonderful notion that Arabs want, deserve and are capable of democracy is looking rather wise. In pursuit of this simple idea he was willing, up to a point, to discombobulate long-standing American allies whose autocratic behaviour at home America had long forgiven or overlooked in the interests of realpolitik.

Compare that, say Mr Bush’s defenders, to what came next. Barack Obama entered office eager to “engage” America’s enemies and repair relations with Islam. So keen was he on engagement that he gave only tepid support to 2009’s “green revolution” in Iran, which the regime went on to crush. As for mending relations with Islam, Mr Obama decided that this required some diffidence. So his own big speech in Cairo stressed that America “does not presume to know what is best for everyone.”

That lack of presumption, the neocons now say, was a grave mistake. It gave the dictators a free pass and put America on the wrong side of the barricades in Tahrir Square. Elliott Abrams, who was a senior adviser to Mr Bush, argues that Mr Obama’s misguided fixation on peacemaking in Palestine made him forget about the millions suffering under the boot of the Arab dictators.

More in link.....

Interesting take.

[FanboyOf91]

From later in the article (nice break choice):

The war poisoned the Arabs’ reaction to everything America later said or did. Iraq is now a fragile democracy, but precious few Arabs (and rather few Europeans) believe that Mr Bush invaded Iraq for democracy’s sake. Many think the non-existent weapons of mass destruction were a pretext, too. In Cairo in 2009 Lexington met a pro-reform academic, Nader Fergany, still seething six years on. “The Americans are the Mongols of the 21st century,” he said, “and now Barack Obama is trying to put the icing on this dirty cake.” Whatever they think of the freedom message, most Arabs utterly reject the messenger.

[PeterMP]

There was a thread on this before that went into some detail, and talked about how early on post-9/11, there was some movement in this direction, outside of Iraq, by Bush, but by the second term it was essentially gone. This was clear, especially with respect to our relationship with Pakistan.

I think Bush might have actually believed it, but then over time the "pragmatists" in his administration won out.

[Larry]

My opinion? If W actually had this country on a foreign policy of promoting democracy rather than promoting friendly dictators, then I'll put that next to AIDS in Africa as "Things W did that I agree with, and wish I'd heard about it at the time."

Now, if you want to try to claim that the events in Egypt prove that we were justified in invading Iraq, and that the invasion led to the events in Egypt, then I'm going to laugh at the silly artisan who's trying to revise history.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The democracy in the Middle East was wholly contrived in order for the Bush administration to save face to the total absence of WMD in Iraq. The Bush administration took us into Iraq over WMD and there was no WMD in Iraq ergo Bush was not right.

You don't get to change the reason you did something awful after your initial reason proves false, just so you can rationalize the awful thing you did after the fact.

We were wrong to go into Iraq, and I wish people would stop making up rationalizations for killing over 100,000 people.

[deejaydana]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It just kills you that Bush might have been right here.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think he was still wrong. Intervention has costs. Costs we rarely can afford

[Thiebear]

To Give Bush credit for the Middle East spreading.

Is to Give Clinton credit for his bubble economy.

Both were in office at the right time for the issue. Though going a little deeper, they probably didn't harm the process they were in.

ASF has been ignoring the other 4 reasons for quite some time, don't ask him to be non-partisan now.

Clinton also has a piece of this with the Bosnia rescue against UN wishes... That old man in the tractor breaking through the last barrier allowing the government to fall?

That is no different than Egypt or any other.

[DCSaints_fan]

Next to Israel, during the Bush admin we gave more money to Egypt, and hence the Mubarak regime, than any other country in the ME. How the heck can we claim that we supported regime change there when we did that?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think its fair to say that without both Bush and Obama, this would not be happening in the middle east. I think each has been integral to the uprisings seeking democracy.

[Burgold]

I can imagine both sides. Part of me really likes the idea that Iraq became a catalyst for peace. Part of me rejects it because Iraq today doesn't stand as a shining beacon that other Middle Eastern people would be jealous of. In fact, it could be that the departure of the U.S. troops made Egypt more possible.

The other thought is what if this was a cotton gin moment. There is a theory that if Eli Whitney didn't invent the cotton gin than someone else would have. It was one of those inevitable inventions that was going to come about sooner or later. Whitney just got there first. What if things had been so bad so long in the Middle East that revolt was inevitable, that it had to happen. If that's the case, it could be argued that the U.S. incurrsion into Iraq delayed democrasy because it gave all the old powers more smoke and mirrors. It gave them the opportunity to say... "Look! There's the Great Satan and their friend Israel messing in our affairs again. OOoo don't you just hate them? Those bleeping Christians always going on crusades against us!!!" And so, the energy needed to focus on how miserable their own governments were got redirected to against the common enemy.

I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. I think Bush's actions, esp. his first actions against Al Qaeda started the wheels of revolution, but then also slowed them down when he showed how slow and hard it was to pull off and moreso, slowed it down because it was viewed as an unwarranted act of imperialism.

[Madison Redskin]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It just kills you that Bush might have been right here.

The Bush Administration told the American public that Saddam had a secret WMD program. It was wrong. The Bush Administration told the American public that the war would cost $50-$60 billion. It will likely end up costing $3 TRILLION. The Bush Administration said we would be greeted as liberators. It was wrong. The Bush Administration said there wouldn't be an insurgency. It was wrong.

I have no clue how the Egyptian revolution indicates that Bush was right. The revolution was not orchestrated by the U.S. and it was not inspired by the overthrow of Saddam. But, if you want to pretend otherwise, to justify the a $3 trillion dollar mistake that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, go right ahead.

[deejaydana]

I guess I don't view it as such a black and white issue. do you ever hear Bill Clinton being called out for the mess he made in Bosnia/Kosovo? The issue is more muted than that and if you want to talk about uncalled for deaths, why not mentioned the 300K+ people Hussein exterminated in the run up to our invasion.Or the Dems who supported him (Bush) regards invading. Where's their call out? I'm not for us trying to install democracy worldwide but it cracks me up how worked up liberals get with Bush and Iraq. Where he erred (and he erred mightily) was not gaining world and key nation consensus on what to do w/Hussien. Still, I doubt he would ever be given any kind of credit if something positive came about from that Iraq invasion, such is life and how some people view that matter. It's no doubt complicated by the fact that these events literally take decades to play out.

[Madison Redskin]

I guess I don't view it as such a black and white issue. do you ever hear Bill Clinton being called out for the mess he made in Bosnia/Kosovo?

What mess? He ended those conflicts with basically no US casualties and at a minimal cost. He ****ed up in Somalia, but that wasn't a $3 trillion mistake that resulted in the death/injury of tens of thousands of Americans.

The issue is more muted than that and if you want to talk about uncalled for deaths, why not mentioned the 300K+ people Hussein exterminated in the run up to our invasion.Or the Dems who supported him. Where's their call out?

We weren't responsible for what Saddam did. We are responsible for what we do and the war we started resulted in the deaths of a lot of people. And, yes, the Dems who supported the war deserve to be called out, but Bush deserves most of the blame because he was the President and the person who was pushing the hardest for the war.

I'm not for us trying to install democracy worldwide but it cracks me up how worked up liberals get with Bush and Iraq.

I don't know why they would get worked up. $3 trillion of our tax dollars and thousands of dead Americans. Yeah, who gives a **** about that.

At least he has a spine.

Yeah, it's just too bad that thing that was attached to his spine didn't work very well.

[Larry]

I can imagine both sides. Part of me really likes the idea that Iraq became a catalyst for peace. Part of me rejects it because Iraq today doesn't stand as a shining beacon that other Middle Eastern people would be jealous of. In fact, it could be that the departure of the U.S. troops made Egypt more possible.

Actually, if I try to imagine a linkage between Iraq and Egypt, the only one I can come up with is "Look! Those Americans are installing a puppet government again!"

I agree that if we could turn Iraq into a place that other Mideast countries are jealous of, then that would be the best money we ever spent. But it isn't. (At least, not yet.)

But the article doesn't really claim that Iraq led to Egypt. It claims that Bush pressured Mubarik into allowing some reforms. (Even if minor ones.) And IMO, if that's true, then he deserves some credit. Not for invading Iraq, but for liberalizing Egypt.

[DCsportsfan53]

I think its fair to say that without both Bush and Obama, this would not be happening in the middle east. I think each has been integral to the uprisings seeking democracy.

More like without cheap widespread availability of the internet.

[AsburySkinsFan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It just kills you that Bush might have been right here.

That was not the reason for the invasion and you know it, you don't get to take a test fail it and then see the right answers and suddenly claim you were right all along. If so I would have loved for you to be my algebra teacher in high school.

[Larry]

More like without cheap widespread availability of the internet.

Smart phones.