Bush vs the Axis of Evil: Win, Loss and a Tie

[HOZ]

Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

Just four months after Sept. 11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.
Six years later and with time running out on this administration, the Bush legacy is clear: one for three. Contrary to current public opinion, Bush will have succeeded on Iraq, failed on Iran and fought North Korea to a draw.

I still think the jury is out on Iraq but the surge has definitely succeeded. Al-Queda is vitually defeated and the insurgents have settled down. Now it will be up to the politicians/imams/tribal leaders/strongmen to go the last 25 yards.

I think NK is too pathetic to be anything but a minor nuisance.

As for Iran with or without nukes they are very dangerous and disgusting regime.

[Claeren]

Interesting....

I actually look at Iran as the least threat/biggest win. BAsically, it could have been the biggest poop-show yet and at least Bush didn't screw that up! They posture a lot but just because they don't bow-down to everything and anything America wants does not mean they are really that big of a threat.

North Korea was almost a huge loss for Bush, but it seems they renewed efforts there and the last 6 months or so have seen things stabilize...

And Iraq is a huge question mark. Have things actually calmed down or will it be like Vietnam, where they pretended to have this orderly withdrawl and then a year later when it was off peoples radar in America things are allowed to publically fall apart?! Or are the "terrorists' gone but the civil war about to flare after withdrawl? Or are the "terrorists" simply on the hunt for new battlegrounds? etc etc

I don't see how it will be a victory - especially since it was such a needless war to begin with. It has bred an entire generation of people that now hate America more than ever. At the cost of (eventaully) TRILLIONS of dollars. I find it hard to believe a larger net gain in American-power and/or prosperity could not have resulted from a better use of that money. The COMPARATIVE success between Iraq and the alternative uses of that money is hardly a close race IMO.


Basically i would suggest that Bush-led foriegn policy has been so weak and muddled and filled with backwards ideology and cultural ignorance that at best this administrations record will go down as 'interesting'. I am not sure how ANY of America's larger objectives have been acheived perhaps outside of a narrow "privitization of the gain and nationalization of the loss' as billions in public money has been transferred directly into the pockets of the American-elite while a major hallowing out of national wealth took place.

There has been a 25% gain in public debt (In 6 years, and it is a 25% gain on something that was already huge!), a ~50% erosion in the dollar (and therefore real comparative wealth) and a massive increase in national liabilities (wars, veterans health, etc)




And the biggest failure has been with Russia. Where it is slowly moving towards an abyss and it is not even (outwardly) on America's radar. Putin has basically taken over, changed election laws, seized the media, etc and there is yet to be an organized response. I think THAT will be Bush's greatest failure in hindsight. Allowing Russia (and the world) to go unchallenged down that road....





Claeren.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Interesting....

I actually look at Iran as the least threat/biggest win. BAsically, it could have been the biggest poop-show yet and at least Bush didn't screw that up! They posture a lot but just because they don't bow-down to everything and anything America wants does not mean they are really that big of a threat.

North Korea was almost a huge loss for Bush, but it seems they renewed efforts there and the last 6 months or so have seen things stabilize...

And Iraq is a huge question mark. Have things actually calmed down or will it be like Vietnam, where they pretended to have this orderly withdrawl and then a year later when it was off peoples radar in America things are allowed to publically fall apart?! Or are the "terrorists' gone but the civil war about to flare after withdrawl? Or are the "terrorists" simply on the hunt for new battlegrounds? etc etc

I don't see how it will be a victory - especially since it was such a needless war to begin with. It has bred an entire generation of people that now hate America more than ever. At the cost of (eventaully) TRILLIONS of dollars. I find it hard to believe a larger net gain in American-power and/or prosperity could not have resulted from a better use of that money. The COMPARATIVE success between Iraq and the alternative uses of that money is hardly a close race IMO.


Basically i would suggest that Bush-led foriegn policy has been so weak and muddled and filled with backwards ideology and cultural ignorance that at best this administrations record will go down as 'interesting'. I am not sure how ANY of America's larger objectives have been acheived perhaps outside of a narrow "privitization of the gain and nationalization of the loss' as billions in public money has been transferred directly into the pockets of the American-elite while a major hallowing out of national wealth took place.

There has been a 25% gain in public debt (In 6 years, and it is a 25% gain on something that was already huge!), a ~50% erosion in the dollar (and therefore real comparative wealth) and a massive increase in national liabilities (wars, veterans health, etc)




And the biggest failure has been with Russia. Where it is slowly moving towards an abyss and it is not even (outwardly) on America's radar. Putin has basically taken over, changed election laws, seized the media, etc and there is yet to be an organized response. I think THAT will be Bush's greatest failure in hindsight. Allowing Russia (and the world) to go unchallenged down that road....





Claeren.

I don't think you can blame anyone for Russia. I am always amazed at how people underestimate Russia's power. The USSR collapsed less than 20 years ago, but people can't even remember what a threat it was. Communist regimes were popping up left right and centre.

I guess ultimately it was the collapse of the USSR which led to a lot of the trouble now. It basically created a power imbalance allowing the US to overexercise its power.

Anyway, I think Russia will once again emerge as a superpower after it figures a few things out. This seems to be the pattern in history largely. Russia goes into decline briefly then re-emerges stronger than ever.

[Claeren]

[Double post]

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think you can blame anyone for Russia. I am always amazed at how people underestimate Russia's power. The USSR collapsed less than 20 years ago, but people can't even remember what a threat it was. Communist regimes were popping up left right and centre.

I guess ultimately it was the collapse of the USSR which led to a lot of the trouble now. It basically created a power imbalance allowing the US to overexercise its power.

Anyway, I think Russia will once again emerge as a superpower after it figures a few things out. This seems to be the pattern in history largely. Russia goes into decline briefly then re-emerges stronger than ever.

I am not exactly sure where you were going with that but i certainly do not underestimate Russia's power TODAY, not to mention into the immediate future.

A few short years ago Russia was literally bankrupt and America was on the verge of a golden era. With strong leadership the world IMHO was poised for something great. Instead it squandered that global goodwill and moral legitamacy and has since floundered itself towards bankruptsy. While Russia has adopted the best of capitalism (and even of the outward vestiges of democracy) while maintaining/rebuilding a totalarian regime ruled by their own elite - sadly not all that different from what has increasingly become legitmized in America itself.

I think Zbigniew Brzezinski has really pushed a lot of thought in this area into very interesting places and his criticism of BOTH Iraq wars as a distraction from what should be true American goals is very valid, as is his warning that we will pay for ignoring Russia in the future.

But Russia is arguably stronger today than it has ever been, and it is growing quicker than ever! ALL while being more legitimate as many in the Russian middleclass now dismiss democracy as a facade of a corrupt American elite - no more or less valid than their own. not sure where that leaves us, but i do know it is not as good a place as we could be in when thinking back to 1989....

The Clinton years ignored trouble in the Balkins admittedly, but the Bush years have been far worse in terms of allowing corrupt elements to again entrench within Russia and to now grow their power...


The problem is not these other countries, it is America's own loss of moral and political legitmacy. Every Bush lie, even if the right-wing like Hoz agrees with those lies or can excuse them, is still one more step away form the rest of the world. Whether they see it or not.



Claeren.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I am not exactly sure where you were going with that but i certainly do not underestimate Russia's power TODAY, not to mention into the immediate future.

A few short years ago Russia was literally bankrupt and America was on the verge of a golden era. With strong leadership the world IMHO was poised for something great. Instead it squandered that global goodwill and moral legitamacy and has since floundered itself towards bankruptsy. While Russia has adopted the best of capitalism (and even of the outward vestiges of democracy) while maintaining/rebuilding a totalarian regime ruled by their own elite - sadly not all that different from what has increasingly become legitmized in America itself.

I think Zbigniew Brzezinski has really pushed a lot of thought in this area into very interesting places and his criticism of BOTH Iraq wars as a distraction from what should be true American goals is very valid, as is his warning that we will pay for ignoring Russia in the future.

But Russia is arguably stronger today than it has ever been, and it is growing quicker than ever! ALL while being more legitimate as many in the Russian middleclass now dismiss democracy as a facade of a corrupt American elite - no more or less valid than their own. not sure where that leaves us, but i do know it is not as good a place as we could be in when thinking back to 1989....

The Clinton years ignored trouble in the Balkins admittedly, but the Bush years have been far worse in terms of allowing corrupt elements to again entrench within Russia and to now grow their power...


The problem is not these other countries, it is America's own loss of moral and political legitmacy. Every Bush lie, even if the right-wing like Hoz agrees with those lies or can excuse them, is still one more step away form the rest of the world. Whether they see it or not.



Claeren.

What should the US have done? They were already giving them massive amounts of aid, which led to their economic recovery. To try and blame the current situation in Russia on Bush is absolutely ridiculous. Russia has and always will be a fiercely nationalist country.

If you give Russia aid they will see at as a cultural invasion and not goodwill. To blame the US for the corruption is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly what specifically did you expect them to do? (please answer this question for me before you go any further) Ignoring Russia? When did they ever ignore Russia? The truth is the Americans can only criticize Russia so much, even in economic downturn they would never risk open warfare w/ them.

So when Hillary gets elected next november will you still be spouting this America is a totalitarian state stuff, or will you find some other conspiracy theory to occupy your time? I hear that CSIS is using satellites to spy on us? I recommend a tinfoil hat of some kind.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Anyway, I think Russia will once again emerge as a superpower after it figures a few things out. This seems to be the pattern in history largely. Russia goes into decline briefly then re-emerges stronger than ever.

Its like a book I once read.

Oh wait...

[Locke]

So....does this make him .500 or lower?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by blankall

What should the US have done? They were already giving them massive amounts of aid, which led to their economic recovery. To try and blame the current situation in Russia on Bush is absolutely ridiculous. Russia has and always will be a fiercely nationalist country.

If you give Russia aid they will see at as a cultural invasion and not goodwill. To blame the US for the corruption is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly what specifically did you expect them to do? (please answer this question for me before you go any further) Ignoring Russia? When did they ever ignore Russia? The truth is the Americans can only criticize Russia so much, even in economic downturn they would never risk open warfare w/ them.

So when Hillary gets elected next november will you still be spouting this America is a totalitarian state stuff, or will you find some other conspiracy theory to occupy your time? I hear that CSIS is using satellites to spy on us? I recommend a tinfoil hat of some kind.

I am supposed to have the answer to that question? I am some kid on a message board! I am not saying i know how to lead the world, all i am saying is that in the last ~4 years activities in Russia have been accelerating and due to the Bush administrations proccupation with Iraq (both politically and financially) there is no sign that is going to slow. Condoleezza Rice is one of the worlds foremost experts on Soviet/Eastern-bloc politics, maybe she has some ideas?!

Fair or not that will be a legacy when it explodes on the world stage sooner than later.

Certainly Bush Sr and Clinton failed to take decisive action when they had the chance and they always have to take some academic blame for that. But it has been the total disillusionment of most of the worlds population due to THIS Bush that has allowed Russia to accelerate their efforts towards what is increasingly a fascist state.

The world didn't hate Clinton, and they didn't even hate Bush Sr. Bush junior has single handidly pushed world public opinion against America and its goals.

EVEN if Americans like his policies in the short term, EVEN if Clinton and BushSr should share the blame, i think the PERCEIVED REALITY, for better or worse, will come to focus on how anyone could have let Russia fall in the direction it is falling.


I am not commenting on how fair that is, just that i think it will be how it is.

I don't think i am conspiracy theorist at all though!? Where are you getting that from?

And i am NOT a Hillary supporter. To have 4 straight presidents over ~20 years+ from only two families would be disgusting and an afront to democracy. Why not just give them crowns if that is how people want to rotate power in America?

I think John Mccain would be my first choice, although more so the 4-8 year ago Mccain. So i think that leaves me with Obama, but mostly only because he is an outsider and America needs an outsider IMO.


I think my biggest concern out of all of that though is America's failure to lead by example. They can preach these big idealistic ideas about freedom but when the rest of the world looks inside the current American government i don't think they see much to be inspired by. And i doubt many want to build their own governments, for better or worse, in America's image. Why is it that Republicans themselves can be SO skeptical about 'their federal government and all of its waste' yet be so surprised when the rest of the world does not want their government either? The sad part is, when the American government is not hijacked by special interests and greed it is actually pretty inspirational i think!

The hindsight 100 years from now will be, what the hell was Bush doing all those years while democracy died?! Which is ironic considering his little war in Iraq had a stated purpose of spreading democracy.... too bad when he says 'democracy' he just means 'opening markets to exploitation'.



Claeren.

[RougeUnderoos]

Just four months after Sept. 11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task.

Seems kind of odd to me.

Just 4 months after Bob's house was burned down by arsonists, he identified termites, mold and monsoons as the biggest threat to his household.

It's a bit of a dodgy start.

Anyway, despite Mr. Krauthammer's insistence, I don't know how anyone can call Iraq "a success". It certainly didn't turn out like they planned. "Success" would have been what they said was going to happen, and it didn't, so it has to be considered a failure.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"Success" would have been what they said was going to happen, and it didn't, so it has to be considered a failure.

Would you call then WWII for the Allies a failure because it did not turn out how they expected even though they still won?

Is there anything that really goes exactly according to plan?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Would you call then WWII for the Allies a failure because it did not turn out how they expected even though they still won?

Is there anything that really goes exactly according to plan?

Nothing goes exactly according to plan. This went exactly the opposite of the plan. They invaded because of the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs, but they didn't exist. How can that be considered a success?

They've lost all those soldiers, killed all those innocent people, spent that mind-boggling amount of money, seriously hurt their own country and there is still no end in sight to this thing. How can that be "successful". What is failure, if this is success?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nothing goes exactly according to plan. This went exactly the opposite of the plan. They invaded because of the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs, but they didn't exist. How can that be considered a success?

They've lost all those soldiers, killed all those innocent people, spent that mind-boggling amount of money, seriously hurt their own country and there is still no end in sight to this thing. How can that be "successful". What is failure, if this is success?

Most definitely the jury is out on Iraq as I said. But the way you put it since everything did not go to plan it is a failure. You point to the WMDs as a failure but then the removal of Saddam and his odorous sons was a success as Krauthammer points out.

Now certainly the US stumbled around like keystone cops but souly blaming the US for all those deaths is absolving Al-Queda and the Iraqi people of their resposibility for their own actions.

The Surge has been a success. Agreed? It has definitely turned the corner for Iraq. The place is far less violent and now there is a chance for peace. If Iraq turns out eventually to be a stable ally of the West would you agree it is a success?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If Iraq turns out eventually to be a stable ally of the West would you agree it is a success?

That depends on what the tab is, I guess.

If the Americans spends 10 years a couple trillion dollars, ~5000 soldiers, damage their own economy and alienates or downright pisses-off much of the world to get a "stable ally", I don't know think I'd call it a success. Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but not a success.

Tell me, if you knew then what you knew now (WMDs, deaths, chaos, cost, et cetera) would you have backed the war? If you knew it was going to turn out like it has, would you still have thought it was a good idea?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I am supposed to have the answer to that question? I am some kid on a message board! I am not saying i know how to lead the world, all i am saying is that in the last ~4 years activities in Russia have been accelerating and due to the Bush administrations proccupation with Iraq (both politically and financially) there is no sign that is going to slow. Condoleezza Rice is one of the worlds foremost experts on Soviet/Eastern-bloc politics, maybe she has some ideas?!

Fair or not that will be a legacy when it explodes on the world stage sooner than later.

Certainly Bush Sr and Clinton failed to take decisive action when they had the chance and they always have to take some academic blame for that. But it has been the total disillusionment of most of the worlds population due to THIS Bush that has allowed Russia to accelerate their efforts towards what is increasingly a fascist state.

The world didn't hate Clinton, and they didn't even hate Bush Sr. Bush junior has single handidly pushed world public opinion against America and its goals.

EVEN if Americans like his policies in the short term, EVEN if Clinton and BushSr should share the blame, i think the PERCEIVED REALITY, for better or worse, will come to focus on how anyone could have let Russia fall in the direction it is falling.


I am not commenting on how fair that is, just that i think it will be how it is.

I don't think i am conspiracy theorist at all though!? Where are you getting that from?

And i am NOT a Hillary supporter. To have 4 straight presidents over ~20 years+ from only two families would be disgusting and an afront to democracy. Why not just give them crowns if that is how people want to rotate power in America?

I think John Mccain would be my first choice, although more so the 4-8 year ago Mccain. So i think that leaves me with Obama, but mostly only because he is an outsider and America needs an outsider IMO.


I think my biggest concern out of all of that though is America's failure to lead by example. They can preach these big idealistic ideas about freedom but when the rest of the world looks inside the current American government i don't think they see much to be inspired by. And i doubt many want to build their own governments, for better or worse, in America's image. Why is it that Republicans themselves can be SO skeptical about 'their federal government and all of its waste' yet be so surprised when the rest of the world does not want their government either? The sad part is, when the American government is not hijacked by special interests and greed it is actually pretty inspirational i think!

The hindsight 100 years from now will be, what the hell was Bush doing all those years while democracy died?! Which is ironic considering his little war in Iraq had a stated purpose of spreading democracy.... too bad when he says 'democracy' he just means 'opening markets to exploitation'.



Claeren.

Okay I will apologize. My wording in the last post was totally uncalled for. You're obviously a lot more intelligent than most of the political theorists I deal w/ on the net.

I'm not saying I think Hillary would be the best president either, but I definitely think she will win. Just as I didn't really care to have Bush Jr. for a second term, but knew Kerry had zero chance of winning.

Basically my point is this. There was nothing that could be done about Russia. It was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If America had tried to foster relations anymore, then the Russians would have seen it as a cultural invasion. IF the American policy was isolationist, then the Russians would have seen it as a cold shoulder. Russia's ultimate goal was to emerge as a superpower once more and they are. The same thing has been going on w/ Russia for close to a thousand years, and Russia seems to expand its sphere of influence further and further each time.

I think a lot of the reason why the US is so hated is because they were perceived as being unchallenged. Let's face it, everybody loves the underdog. The next US government will be far more isolationist in practice than the last. This combined w/ the emergence three new superpowers ( China, Russia, and the EU (whom I think is doomed to self destruct, but that's a whole other post)), will ultimately change the world's view on the US. I guarantee you in 10 years people will be beeeeegging the US to become militarily involved in other countries.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That depends on what the tab is, I guess.

If the Americans spends 10 years a couple trillion dollars, ~5000 soldiers, damage their own economy and alienates or downright pisses-off much of the world to get a "stable ally", I don't know think I'd call it a success. Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but not a success.

Tell me, if you knew then what you knew now (WMDs, deaths, chaos, cost, et cetera) would you have backed the war? If you knew it was going to turn out like it has, would you still have thought it was a good idea?

I didn't base my support on WMDs. I based it on getting rid of the most odorous regime on the planet.

After knowing that the US threw away the Powell doctrine to follow war on the cheap and all their bubbling and stumbling afterwards...I haven't changed my mind. The alternative was much worse and would have cost more lives in the long run.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I didn't base my support on WMDs. I based it on getting rid of the most odorous regime on the planet.

After knowing that the US threw away the Powell doctrine to follow war on the cheap and all their bubbling and stumbling afterwards...I haven't changed my mind. The alternative was much worse and would have cost more lives in the long run.

Pretty dramatic stuff -- "the most odorous regime on the planet".

What alternative would have cost more lives in the long run?

The "not lying" alternative wouldn't have cost more lives. The "have a plan" alternative wouldn't have cost more lives. The "let's not rush into this as fast as possible" alternative wouldn't have cost more lives.

I'm sure there are dozens of alternatives that would have in fact saved a lot of lives.

But nope. They made up a threat and invaded as soon as they could, and it's been a failure.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Pretty dramatic stuff -- "the most odorous regime on the planet".

What alternative would have cost more lives in the long run?

Keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

It seems....
For you it is a failure no matter what success comes out of it.

For me there is some good with a whole lot of bad and it looks like it just might turn out to be a success after all. If the Iraqis fail to settle things themselves then it is a callossal failure with one bright spot. Saddam is no more.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

It seems....
For you it is a failure no matter what success comes out of it.

For me there is some good with a whole lot of bad and it looks like it just might turn out to be a success after all. If the Iraqis fail to settle things themselves then it is a callossal failure with one bright spot. Saddam is no more.

That is hilarious. Saddam Hussain was the biggest threat to Al Qaida in the region! He was so afraid they would undermine his power that he activily fought them on a number of fronts.

He was also effectivily powerless since sanctions were introduced and if America had merely worked to enforce those sanctions as only they had the power to do he would have been even more powerless.

You would have had a powerless despot inadvertantly fighting against the same enemy as the USA.

Instead you have a major dis-stablized breeding ground of both terrorists and american-hatred, no regional counter-threat to Al Qaida, and a huge HUGE power vacuum in the middle east. Not to mention the loss of trillions fighting the wrong enemy that could have been spent fighting better enemies!

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia - America's, the Bush Family's and the Republican Party's greatfriend in the region - is anti-democratic, anti-female and the home nation of the brain trust of Al Qaida and they get off without any direct pressure at all?


I would suggest the better course would have been something along the lines of a plan to tighten up sanctions on Iraq, pressuring Saudi Arabia into major reform, containing Iran as they have but without the distraction of Iraq enabling Iran to be bolder than they can be ow, commiting to WINNING in Afganistan, fighting poverty without corporate agendas and general corruption in Africa and the Middle East (With poverty being the number one contributer to terrorism in the middle east), and spending considerable funds to secure American borders at home.

You could have done all that for a TINY fraction of the long and short term costs of what bush has done post 9/11. You could probably have kept balanced budgets and have $2 Trillion less in debt today.



But i guess that is just wishful thinking....





Claeren.

[HOZ]

Thank you to a friend who sent me this link. Well worth the time to read it.

Bruce Gilley, National Post Published: Saturday, December 22, 2007

I think I will follow the his lead and end the Iraqi debates.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!