Visiting the British premier, U.S. President George W. Bush bids farewell to Europe. To retrospectively criticize his policy would be too easy.
Like every other American President, George W. Bush worries about his place in history. In this regard, Gordon Brown turned out to be the perfect host. Among the guests he invited to the president’s farewell party at 10 Downing Street were a number of renowned British historians such as Simon Schama, the holocaust expert Martin Gilbert and Andrew Roberts, who wrote books about historical figures such as Churchill, Hitler and Napoleon. All of them have probably something to say on the topic of legacy which bothers the American guest. Moreover, rumor has it that Bush is looking for a capable ghost writer. He is obviously determined to honor the world with his thoughts.
For anti-war demonstrators as well as for the majority of Western Europeans, this practice won’t be necessary. Their opinion was formed long ago and it corresponds with the one voiced by the Western European Media–Bush was a terrible president who caused extensive damage in the world and ruined the American reputation.
People from Georgia, the Ukraine and other countries from east Europe disagree–they are grateful for Bush’s support in both word and deed. Africa also has its reasons to look back with satisfaction at Bush’s term in office. Remember the initiatives against HIV/AIDS, malaria and hunger, a fact that different characters such as Bob Geldorf, Tony Blair, Bono and Nelson Mandela have been pointing out on various occasions.
The dispute over the war in Iraq shall not be carried on here. The opinions about the war clash violently with each other, concerning its legality and the question as to how wise it was. The judgment of historians might turn out to be more positive than the one of the short-winded bustling media society, where the momentary emotions tend to cloud the judgment of the situation–each dead soldier is seen as a valid argument against the war, while its long-term danger is usually completely ignored.
The historian Philipp Bobbit, adviser to various American presidents, follower of the Democrats and author of the book “The Shield of Achilles,” draws an interesting parallel in his new work “Terror and Consent.” After Bill Clinton had repeatedly admitted that he regrets not having avoided the Rwandan Genocide through a military intervention, Bobbit wonders what would have happened if the U.S. had intervened. According to his assessment, Clinton would have been impeached by a Republican-controlled Congress. Certainly, there would have been American losses due to the lack of public support; for all the precautions, civilians would have died. If President Clinton were to explain his decision by the fact that it saved 800,000 human lives, who would have believed him?
There is one thing that speaks in Bush’s favor–the invasion of Iraq led to the collapse of one of the most brutal dictatorships. The American strategy, however, was primarily assigned by Rumsfeld and Cheney, two Republicans whose decision turned out to be devastating–there weren’t enough soldiers, the strategy wasn’t planned rationally, in terms of rebuilding the country as well, and there was no absolute priority ensuring public safety, prior to the Iraqis being called to the ballot box.
Even so, after three years the situation in Iraq has improved. The frequently predicted collapse of Iraq didn’t occur. The Shiite government and the army managed to repress the mujahideen in Al-Qaida, the Sunnites understood that they have to come to terms with the Shiite majority. The cover story of the latest edition of the “Economist” is dedicated to stabilization of Iraq.
A lot of things have been pointing towards this development for a long time now, even if the European press has difficulties acknowledging it. By the way, let’s make one thing clear–the European anticipation that as soon as Barack Obama enters the White House the American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq is certainly just an illusion. America’s exposure to the world won’t change drastically from the hard line Bush has adopted during his second term. After all, the problems and the dangers remain the same. In Bush and Brown’s dialogue, the grasp of the Islamic regime in Teheran was as important as oil prices and energy saving measures. The differences between Europe and America concerning climate protection will eventually fade away, not least because the Europeans will finally realize that their goals are either out of reach or economically harmful.
George Bush opened his farewell tour with soft conciliatory words. Last week he admitted that his language often sounded too aggressive and he regrets not having clarified the virtues behind his words. The ability to admit your own mistakes is a most welcome character trait. However, George W. Bush shouldn’t be too hard on himself. It doesn’t really matter whether you call it “the war against terror” or choose kinder wording for the European minds, the effect is the same–in the end, the Americans, as well as the Europeans, will have to resist the new terrorism as a threat to their democracy.