Edward Luttwak’s last cover story for us, a provocative essay arguing that the middle east was of small and declining strategic significance, proved so irritating to so many that it remains one of the most popular pieces we’ve ever published, to judge by our website traffic. (It’s also being turned into a book. The film rights may still be available.)
Now Luttwak is back with another dose of far-out contrarianism: George W Bush’s presidency, he argues, far from being the foreign-policy catastrophe almost everyone, left and right, takes it to be, has actually been a stunning success. With the admittedly rather glaring exception of Iraq, Bush’s aggressive foreign policy has successfully rolled back the global tide of jihadism and brought recalcitrant governments in the Muslim world on side. “You’re either with us or against us”—the Bushism most commonly invoked to stand for what is supposed to be the president’s dunderheaded black-and-white view of the world was and remains, says Luttwak, exactly the right slogan and the right attitude.
Please vent your spleen below.
I sent this aricle to my wife and said I could not have articulated more clearly my beliefs on President Bush and the evolving world over the past 7 years than Edward Luttwak did in his brilliant essay.
Quite simply put, he nailed it.
Edward Luttwak has done a great service with his piece on the President. I have not come across an article that describes what President Bush has done for his country so accurately as this. Anyone who has an iota of Intelligence cannot deny the fact that This President has been a blessing.
I have heard Luttwak speak and own several of his books. He is a deep and provoking strategic thinker. That said, he opposed the Iraq invasion not on moral grounds, but because (he said) U.S. forces would incur tens of thousands of deaths in the INITIAL invasion from fanatical Saddamites defending their homeland. (Nothing about post-invasion casualties from our bumbling state dept. and generals, mind you.) That prediction was about as wrong as it was possible to be, so I cannot give his opinions on China’s future peaceable intent much credit. China’s government has always looked and acted like a pack of thugs. Why do you suppose they are building all those submarines and aircraft carriers with bases all over the world and making weapons and oil deals with other thug nations like Iran, Venezuela and Sudan? To protect their shipments of cheap junk to Wal-Mart?
I am dissapointed to see Mr.Luttwak drinking the “Harry Truman as cold warrior” cool-aid. Numerous nations fell to communism under Truman, and the dominoes did not stop falling until Ronald Reagan took office. Truman was a failure. Bush is a success.
From an anthropological perspective, it’s fascinating to observe the few dead-enders who still approve of George Bush. They share an almost mystical faith in the redemptive powers of historical hindsight, as evinced by their constant and fetishic attempts to conflate Bush with Truman. I think contained within their belief that someday Bush will be rehabilitated and re-classified as a great president is the hope that they and their neo-conservative worldview will be redeemed along with him. These are hard days to be a right-winger, with the American public turing against conservativism and blaming Bush for all the problems the country is now facing. And because they feel implicated in his unpopularity, die-hard Bush supporters compenstae for this affront to their self-esteem by indulging in a fantasy wherein Bush (and by extention themselves) are someday given credit for having been right all along.
History will judge Bush by whether Iraq will be the Japan or the Vietnam of the Middle East. This cannot be done before November; McCains also does not seem to aim for the first and Obama obviously aims for the later.
This article was pretty interesting, and I agree with the premise that time will probably change - probably in unpredictable ways - how we come to view how these years were.
However, I was surprised at one glaring omission from this article about what is undoubtedly the most significant aspect of how the “why 9/11 itself happened” has changed.
al Qaeda’s demand on 9/11 (and prior) was to remove the American military from Saudi Arabia. The military was put there after Gulf War I specifically to contain Saddam. Because of the 2003 Iraq War removing Saddam from the picture, we left the Saudi bases in 2004. In effect, this resolves the central demand of al Qaeda’s stated declaration of war and 9/11 itself from the equation.
I’d think an article which had all these other secondary pieces would have somehow addressed the fact that the root cause of 9/11 no longer exists.
Surprised to see the number of positive replies.
I have been saying the exact same thing for years. And no I am not a mystical neo-con. Just a person who actually makes an effort to think about current evets from a historical perspective.
I have actually offered to make bets with my friends (both sides of aisle) that Bush will be considered top third in annual historian polls within ten years for his foreign policy. (They just think I am nuts since they know I am n
Domestic policy mediocre so will hold him back from true greatness. Harry Truman has been my pick for the best in the 20th century for years precisely because he was willing to make the hard choices against determined opposition from the “lets sweep it under the rug like Slick Willy” crowd. Bush is the same and all the name calling by the ignorant will not change history.
JLK
I can not believe my eyes. How is it possible that this ’serious’ magazine and its ’serious’ journalist publish this. Bush has defeated jihadism? Do not make me laugh! I may be young, but even I am not that ignorant or blind. USA made and supported this jihadi people co-trained them, not UAE or Saudis an Pakistani alone… They made them so they could use them, they still support some of them (Iraq, Afghanistan,…)
And Pakistan and Saudis still export terrorism. I do not know where this writer is getting his info, but I do know that his biased! Extremist Islam has never know such a big growth, and not because of the actions of ‘al Quada’ (just a hand full of people) BUT BY THE US FOREIGN POLICY. So it is really funny, to call Bush the one who defeated jihadism… He planted the seed, he gave it water, protected it from the storms en bugs. And know you are telling me he has destroyed it?
And the US economy? Just wait and see the next 5 years
It is a great — if only partial — relief to see in print from someone like Lutwak the ideas that one has been trying to propose to unwilling — even mocking — Americans and Europeans for the past five years. I believe Bush will be widely seen as an ideal and much appreciated US President within the next 10 to 20 years, if not sooner. We should be showing gratitude now for his unbending strength.
Unfortunately, his appreciation will come less because the growing embourgeois-ed world will soon enjoy lasting peace, growth, and new technologies that change our lives. It will more likely be because the ever-growing Moslem immigrant populations of the West turning to rioting and bombing to achieve Shariah law and other sources of their empowerment will make Lutwak’s first point so eloquently obvious. I fear Obama is set to move us in that general direction.
and one more thing…
derbydoll has a point on China…
Let us also not forget that under pres Bush, Mr Poetin did what he did and still does …
Amen.
Outstanding article, the best I’ve read in quite some time. I only wish that W had the fortitude on domestic fiscal policy that he has shown in the war on terror. You can tell he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never had to sweat for a dollar and never had to be fiscally responsible. He did, however, bring a swift end to jihad.
An excellent article that reminds us of the aspects of the war Bush told us we wouldn’t see.
Wow, this is one of the best pieces I have seen in years.
Not only does it slap down all the ‘conventional’ wisdom that is inevitably incorrect, but it articulates the successful Bush strategy at a time when even the administration has given up on trying to pierce the barrier the left has built around their myths.
It is really hard to believe our nation has been overtaken by the propaganda but the stark reality is that it has. This piece exposes most of their lies to the light of day — will anyone read it this side of history?
Thank you!
David
About Iraq; the war has cost the US about $1 Trillion, most of it in debt. The issue, I guess, is was it worth it? The article says “Yes”, the dollar price says “maybe”. WW II was “worth it” ($3-4 Trillion in today’s prices) but Hitler and the Japanese militarists were uniquely evil- and dangerous; I am not so sure about Saddam Hussein.
About the general response to Islamic fascism; the author is “right on”. This explosively dangerous mind-set is horrible beyond belief.
This was the prevailing view — That President Bush’s policies were assaulting Islamic Jihanism and winning around the world — up until we hit a rough patch in Iraq. Once we hit that rough patch helping the Iraqis to form their government, rebuild their infrastructure and rebuild their military, the nay-sayers, the nattering nabobs, the political hacks, the liberals have yelled and screamed that the top of their lungs that this policy was a failure to the point that a good percentage of people believe it. Then, lo and behold, the administration analyzed the situation, readjusted their strategy, and implemented the “Surge”. They STILL can’t believe or won’t admit that it worked! What some people don’t understand is that NO strategy ever works perfectly. Even the First Gulf War, which is hailed as the greatest war ever fought, left Saddam Hussein in power and killing his own people for 12 more years. Yes, we lost some fine soldiers in Iraq, but in comparison to other multi-year wars, the losses were very few. Our Military has transformed itself since the Vietnam War to not allow what happened there to ever happen again. The results are we will not abandon Iraq to the Jihadists. Americans should be proud of what they did in Afghanistan and Iraq! Also, the results of these two countries falling was so superbly stated in this article. We cannot let up!
Belgian is right. Iraq is our Frankenstein. We didn’t create jihadism, but we breathed life into it by marching into Iraq (why didn’t we march into Saudi Arabia, home of the hijackers?- oh that’s right, we were already there- the reason for the plot in the first place).
And why is there reason to believe the surge is working? Because we are being told so. I personally don’t know if it is or isn’t. Nor do any of the contributors here. What are the soldiers saying? There haven’t been enough discharged that have served during this ‘era’ of whatever it is that’s going on over there- I hesitate to call it a war- that can talk freely yet. I predict the result of American withdrawal will be same whether we leave tomorrow or ten years from now. I personally don’t know if it is or isn’t. But the surge itself is evidence of the civilian chickenhawks’ incredible incompetence in managing warfare. Why didn’t we ’surge’ in the spring of 03? And wasn’t the surge supposed to be over and done with within 6 months? These guys are brutal.
Chickenhawks, i.e. those in the neocon movement that dodged the war in Vietnam but had no qualms drumming up a pack of lies to lead us into this immoral quagmire. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol and yes, “Stateside” flyboy George. Others too numerous too mention.
Very good article. I think Bush’s legacy is safe. He won’t be rated as a “great” president, but he’ll probably end up in the top half like every other wartime president (with the exception of Nixon for obvious reasons). If you examine the various presidential polls that have been done, beginning with Schlessinger’s seminal 1948 poll and then, most recently, the Wall Street Journal poll in 2005, historians have typically rated wartime presidents in the top 20. I see no reason why this trend wouldn’t continue in the future. Heck, even Lyndon Johnson comes in at a respectable 17, and James K. Polk rates a 9. I do believe, however, that Iraq will play a significant role in Bush’s legacy. Despite all the incompetence, poor planning, lack of WMD, etc., Bush did oust a vicious dictator and established a democracy in Mesopotamia for the first time in human history. Future historians will definitely give him considerable credit for that.
The article has missed some points. Al Queda has defeated itself by its random mass killing of Muslim civilians, which so so bloody that even the Arabs were repelled.
The author did not mention another ace in the hole the US has — demographics. It is the only major country that is not heading towards a population implosion.
In a decade or so, after his economic mismanagement has worked itself out, the US may well be back to it old strength, but giving Bush credit for this is like giving the Germans credit for the post World War II redevelopment of London.
A fascinating read and a welcome contrast to the “conventional wisdom” of the moment.
Whether Bush is/was a great question may never really be known. Happily, we may never know what the extremists would have accomplished had he not reacted so vigorously and with such courage.
What remains fascinating is his apparent mix of global insight and local (Iraq) incompetence.
It is fashionable to fault him and deride him. I would not take his job for wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.
Well, Truman followed a popular president (FDR) and paled in comparison to FDR’s skills. George W. Bush paled in comparison to the political skills of his predecesor Clinton.
Truman presided over the partitioning of Palestine, which may have led to the current conflicts in the world today (WWIII?).
Let’s hope George W. has not set the stages for an even greater war to come. Maybe Truman’s call “Give ‘em hell” rallying cry really does describe W. after all. Many can’t wait for the long national nightmare of these past 8 years to be over. Truman inherited the presidency when FDR’s health failed. George W. inherited the presidency after Bill Clinton’s personal failings, and because of his inherited name (Bush dynasty). Both Truman and W. were suprisingly re-elected. Surprising because they both could have never been president in the first place, had it not been for their more popular predecessors’ tragic flaws.
p.s. my father was drafted by Truman into the Korean War and became a lifelong Republican. Perhaps W. has done the same for his party’s brand, as this appears to be a year for the Democrats. Truman’s legacy was 8 years of IKE, and W.’s legacy quite well could be 8 years of Obama and an increasing Democratic majority in the Congress. Sometimes what voters get wrong in one election, they correct for in the following cycles. I truly believe every elected president is on some level a counter-reaction to the past failings of the last administration.
Amazing that mr Luttwak gets anything published after having been so thoroughly trashed by Richard A. Posner almost 8 years ago in his book on Public Intellectuals. Regardless of whether one has sympathy for Luttwak’s views or not, anyone who has blundered in his predictions as often as he has (according to the Posner book) must be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.
What is next?
Telling us that Bush managed the Louisiana post Katrina flooda very well?
If I may add
amen Frankenheimer AMEN
Prospect is suppose to be ”contrarian” but so fictional?? I agree that the mainstream media is not telling us the full story but an one sided one. Prospect should show us other sides of the story, but not a biased fictional side, a side that could be told and invented by the same people who said that Saddam had WMD and that ‘old’ Europe was not a true US partner.
Iraq a success? Iraq = Vietnam = failure
Iraq can only be called a success if you are talking about oil, and managing oil price, or big business for certain private US companies (and some of other countries)
If you think that it was good for democracy, stopping jihadism, or that the ’surge’ has worked, you need to wash your ears and buy some glasses.
Why? Give me a chance to explain my view, a long one, but I must share it with you, now that I have read some reactions here. I feel obliged to give the side of the story of the people who are more affected by the war than us, in the West, the Iraqis and their neighbors.
part 2
Iraqi civilian death toll and suffering is hardly mentioned, don’t you think that it could influence the view of Iraqis (and other Middle Eastern people) about the American occupation? Let us be honest, it is a occupation, when you invade a country on false premises(what a humiliation for Collin Powell, a great American, in the UN, with the ‘proof’ of WMD , an other victim of Bush’s neo con advisers). And during the invasion you let looters steel weapons and destroy hospitals, museums, but you go straight to the oil ministry, it sends the wrong message… When people in a oil country have to wait a half day in line for an expensive gallon, while on the news they see the filled oil tankers leave their ports, can be frustrating.
Then came along Brenner, Bush’s first man in Iraq, made blunder after blunder, the biggest being dismantling the whole police and security force. Now, after half a million deaths, you have a lot of the same Iraqi people doing their old jobs and jihadis giving security to the Iraqis.
part 3
Iraq now consists of 3 ethnic parts more than ever before, probably the Bush administration plan from the beginning (devide and conquer), Sunni, Kurds, Shia, the last 2 had no power under Saddam, now they control the most oil rich areas, thus having the biggest incomes. And the ethnic discrimination between Shia and Soenni were also less extreem before, you had mixed marriages. Now a days families split up because of the external pressure and killings.
For the moment Shia and Kurds tolerate the US, but for how long? Shia being Iran’s spiritual and cultural other-half. Kurds looking for independence, something that Turkey, a possible future EU member, does not want to see, because of its own long lasting internal problems with Kurds (Turkish airplanes bombard Iraqi Kurdistan every day and in Turkey the manhunt for Kurdish rebels is on. So what will happen when Turkey is a EU member and it is attacked by Kurdish rebels, whom get weapons and support from the US?
part 4
Iraqis(Sunni and Shia) want the Americans out soon as possible. Why?
You hear about the successful surge… Well there have been a lot of surges in the past, none of them ever worked, why then the falling of violence now?
Because Iraqis have built walls inside and around their towns. All kind of splinter group ’security forces’ have been put to life by the Iraqis them self, without any control of the US or Iraqi government on them, quite disturbing actually for the future. You even have children with machine guns protecting their blocks. The US forces now have made deals with jihadis, they just leave each other be, US doing their stuff, the jihadis spreading their word and influence around towns. That is the true reason of the successful surge, US forces have backed down and avoid any confrontation.
Is this the success?
part 5
Iraq, the new safe haven for extremist, a nest for shia extremism and Kurdish rebellion? Under the US army’s nose? I do not have to guess what the US soldiers think of the ’surge’ or the occupation. I just feel sorry for the families of the ca 5000 casualties and the +100000 injured.
So, the result, the Bush administration has succeeded in making the situation in the Middle East even more explosive and complex.
Do not forget the ‘looking the other way’, when Israel invaded Libanon, or when Israel by its preemptive killings of Palestians, succeeded in dismantling the party Fatah, that actually had united Palestinian and was ready and strong to bargain for a free Palestinan state. Israel pushed the Palestinians towards Hamas, knowing that the West could never talk with them. Goodbye Palestinian State!
part 6
US forces are going to leave Iraq, if not because the Iraqis want them out, because of the cost of the war. Afterwards either one ethnic group will dominate the others, like under Saddam, or you will have the country split up. Either way the war will be in vain for the average Joe, except for the oil. And some fat cats will have made their fortunes on the American tax payers back
.
But reading some peoples reaction here, few here care about human life other than their own.
No doubt that Bush will be remembered as a good president by a lot of Americans. Is their a president who is ever been remembered as a disaster or a very bad one? Even Nixon has a lot of fans…
The real question is what has he done for his people? Isn’t that what is important for a a president
With all respect to Mr Luttwak, I think he has it wrong here. There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush will go down as one of the worst President’s in the history of the United States. If things have turned around a bit in Iraq it only shows that President Bush has some ability to learn from his mistakes but we have to give equal credit to the Sunnis tribe’s in Iraq that finally had enough of al Qaeda. In this regard, Mr Luttwak was closer to the truth with this Op Ed article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/opinion/06luttwak.html?scp=3&sq=luttwak&st=cse
That the Sunnis decided to work with US is a tribute to the US ground forces, to the Iraqi’s and not to any overt policy decisions to the Bush administration.
The Rand Corporation does not agree with Mr Luttwak’s assessment of al Qaeda:
“Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history.”
…
“We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001.” says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda.”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/new/
Mr Luttwak’s assessment of Pakistan’s ISI is completely off the mark. On the contrary al Qaeda has found safe haven in the Pakistani tribal areas.
“Working with Al Qaeda, the Taliban have steadily tightened their grip over much of the tribal areas in the last several years by cowing or killing hundreds of local tribal chiefs who were the area’s traditional authorities.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html?scp=1&sq=marble%20quarry%20pakistan%20qaeda&st=cse
President Bush’s shift from Afghanistan to Iraq allowed this to happen.
Finally, let’s remember that one of the President Bush’s first foreign policy decisions was to disengage from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict throwing away whatever progress President Clinton had made.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a6WcY1yLpokg&refer=us
President Bush went back to the Clinton policy for dealing with North Korea in exchanging Fuel Oil for Nukes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159933/
President Bush finally re-engaged in the ME when he should have been doing this back in 2000.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rice-the-gracious-hostess-of-bushs-supper-of-contrition/2007/02/28/1172338708128.html
Any progress President Bush has made recently on the foreign policy front in the past year and a half has been made in fear of going down the United States worst president.
Hawk Of May.
Frankenheimer:
In terms of Mr Luttwak’s lack of judgement look at his opinion piece on the democratic nominee Obama and the NYT public editor’s response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?scp=1&sq=luttwak&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01pubed.html?scp=2&sq=luttwak&st=nyt
Hawk of May
That NYT editor’s response is good. Good example
Drawing parallels between Truman and Bush is astonishingly delusional. While Truman was a man of well-disguised depth, and possessed of a deep humanity, Bush has consistently demonstrated a shallowness and insensitivity unworthy of his background or station.
Hawk of May / mr Belgian
Thanks for your supporting views. The NYT piece underscores Posner’s main complaint against “public intellectuals” of mr Luttwak’s stripe: they try to be authoritative outside their area of expertise too often and get away with being wrong too often. This latest piece is a QED of that.
When I first read this article I found its alternative perspective, after all the current Bush-bashing, very refreshing. But read it again and it comes across as utterly desultory, full of half truths and redolent of prejudices. It is Bush-bubblegum that quickly loses its taste for lack of factual substance. It is was Bushites want to hear. Bush has failed miserably, but it is a failure that forced even him to change tack and has the great redeeming factor of spurring a long overdue American reinvention and renewal. Bush should go down in history for being America’s low point, after which the only way was up.
It is not just the Saudis and the UEA princes who were in denial, it is Mr. Luttwak too. To suggest that Pakistan fell in behind the U.S. after 9/11 is to only look at superficialities and to ignore the inveterate anti-Americanism in the Asian sub-continent, the resurgence of the Taliban and the escalation of tribal defiance and militancy on the borders with Afghanistan. In so many other ways, it is Mr. Luttwak who is doing the wish-fulfilling and turning the blind eye, the very type that led to 9/11 in the first place. Fortunately for him, Mr. Luttwak appears to have the attention span of no more than half a sentence, so his total lack of coherent cogency should not trouble him in the least.
About a year ago, this gentleman Ed Luttwak, whispered in my ear (at a reception in the British Acadamy, no less): ‘I believe all people are equal - except Pathans!’
I couldn’t help laughing, softly, for I had just demolished Luttwak’s outrageous views on a putative ‘American empire’& in doing so indicated I was Pathan.
It is really such a disappointment to see Prospect become such a frequent forum for the poisonous views of Mr Luttwak.
Dr Luttwak is right to castigate Friedman and Zakaria for the methods they employ to obtain their information, and he could add others like Roger Cohen to the list. But how does he himself acquire information? His discussion of Indonesia, to give just one example, is utterly wrong. It was only after 9/11 that terrorist attacks targeting foreigners began in Indonesia. The first devastating bombing occurred in Bali on 12 October 2002, long after Bush had won his Afghanistan war. That war provoked a wave of anti-Americanism in Indonesia and was a great fillip to Islamist groups such as the Islamic Defenders’ Front, which is still active today. It gave Jemaah Islamiyah a further justification for killing foreigners. One of the many aspects of Bush’s war on terror that the Indonesians object to is the Bush administration’s refusal to hand over Hambali, Indonesia’s chief terrorist. If Luttwak decides at his time of life that contempt is the best approach to adopt towards the Muslim world, let it be so. But his cavalier attitude towards facts is no doubt one consequence of this disdain and rivals that of Friedman and his other targets.
I think I get it.
Progress requires disruption. Big progress requires big disruption.
The bigger the blunder, the bigger the disruption, the bigger the progress !
War is just rapid redevelopment !
And everything which happens afterword is all to be credited to the blunderer.
Gee, I had been hopelessly naive. I had thought that evaluating a presidency would involve comparing the situation of a nation before and after an administration, asking whether the economy was sounder and more prosperous, whether the prosperity was more widely distributed, whether the nation had become more respected internationally, whether its currency was stronger, its balance of trade more positive, less dependent on foreign sources for energy and manufactures, admired and emulated as an exemplar of human rights, good people, the best and the brightest, brought into government….
I now stand enlightened.
Thank you, Mr. Luttwak.
Homo Sapiens; the only species ever to become extinct through choice.
Jay Conner
I think the best way to access the sucess is to listen to what is going in Islamist groups. In the Guardian
Bush had much worse odds than other Presidents: No solid alliances established like NATO, the naif decade of 1990’s…a culture of “I want it now”.
P.S: I think Iraq has been a success, In historical terms 5000 casualities(including accidents) for a country of 30 millions with a different culture? . Second there have been various wars in Iraq post invasion, when i listen to the first attack against a police station i tought: we have a chance, iraquis want a functional country.
The mission have always been dependent in part of what Iraquis will do with the historical chance they are getting, that invisible bond of trust resinforced with with elections where they voted massively.
The Bush engagement in Middle East showed the true colors(it was a part of the test) of Muslims ( mainly Arabs) and what were the results?: The majority want to live normal lives.
In end i am puzzled by opinion of the Author about Iraq. Iraq was instrumental in defeating(note that defeating is not absence of violence but that appeal of Jihad is much diminished) Al-Qaeda.
It was Iraq War in middle of Middle East lands that made Arab, and other ethnicities, anti-corpus against Fundamentalism.
In 1999 Luttwak pleaded to give war a chance ‘to resolve political conflicts and lead to peace’. Such unreconstructed social Darwinist views worthy of the inter-war aera got a hearing. G. W. Bush gave war ‘a chance’: those that did not ‘get it’, got it, and ‘those that did get it’ will sail on henceforth with the rest of the world, following the US ‘spirit of discovery and invention’.
In Luttwak’s views Bush is akin to Truman. Never mind that by Luttwak’s own admission defeating a state or a state of mind are not exactly comparable. Or that Truman emphatically ‘did not give war a chance’ - as Douglas McArthur wished. Luttwak has never been known for letting mere facts get in the way of his argument of the hour (not even his own views on ‘turbo-capitalism’ - 1998).
1. The strategic blunder that is Iraq is definitely the glaring omission of the article. Admittedly Luttwak accepts this, but his ‘historical perspective’ resigning Iraq to the neglected pile of ill-advised military escapades will be of little significance to 5,000 dead American soldiers, plus the billions of dollars that he has literally poured down the toilet!
It is also important to point out that widespread opposition to the Iraq war and Bush’s further undermining of a shaky United Nations has allowed room for much of the criticism of the ‘War on Terror’, simply in a form of retrospective guilt by association. He has undermined his own efforts to defeat jihadism. This process of undermining anti-jihadist resolve has been further exacerbated by the shambles that is Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, the prison on Diego Garcia, and even prison ships.
In this way Bush has provided excellent recruiting tools for militant islamists.
2. I would imagine it is also important to point out that before 9/11 the behemoth that is the Department of Homeland Security did not even exist. Investment in security and intelligence has increased overwhelmingly, not just in the United States, but across the Western World. In Britain anti-terrorism units only recently reported that they were monitoring close to a 100 different home-grown cells. Part of the praise for the fall in successful terrorist attacks must inevitably be directed towards this increased level of security and intelligence cooperation.
3. Afghanistan, at least at the moment, is far from a closed case. The Taliban is at its most resurgent since the invasion in 2001. International support for the war is waning (thanks, in part, to the way in wish Bush has tainted it) and Osama Bin Laden, the killer of thousands of innocent Americans, still hasn’t been caught 7 years after the attack! Not only this, Bush’s decision to flood the military establishment in Pakistan with cash whilst bolstering the rule of President Musharraf may have won a short term ally, but it most certainly did not win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people, who instead saw nuclear deals and American fighter jets on their way to India, and have now elected a less cooperative government.
4. Bush’s inability to foster international cooperation on climate change may well turn out to be another black mark on his foreign policy record. His obstinacy in the face of the Kyoto Protocol may be seen as just another example of his remarkable ability to weaken transatlantic relations.
5. For all those who think this President may enter the realm of Great American Presidents thanks to the forgiving revisionist tomes that will be written 20 years from now, you can rest assured that his domestic policy, or rather complete ineptitude, will scupper his already slim chances.
Bush will leave America with a $480 billion deficit.
The searing memory of the catastrophe that was the response to Hurricane Katrina can be credited to the incompetency of the Bush administration (the people who appointed the head of FEMA without really enquiring whether he had any relevant experience whatsoever).
The complete lack of regulation which allowed Wall Street Banks to turn the mortgage industry into a casino where sub prime loans were given out like candy to anyone who could sign their name will rest completely on Bush’s doorstep.
The disaster that has been No Child Left Behind.
The unchecked, sky-rocketing cost of health care…the list really does go on, and on.
I can’t really understand how can one acknowledge the Iraq blunder AND claim that Bush rolled back jihadism at the same time. It takes only a simple fact-check (http://media.economist.com/images/20080719/CSR937.gif) to see, that this misadventure was a great catalyst for the jihadist cause, and since it began, deaths due to terrorism skyrocketed in the Arab world and everywhere else. Jihadism defeated? Not under this President.
This is just silly. Jihadish is in retreat? Yes. Because of Bush’s acitons? No. Just as it is an accident of history that Bush was in office on 9/11, it is a accident of history that Bush is in office when Jihadism overplayed its hand and alienated all the governments in the Muslim world, and all the moderates and progressives in those societies. Bush’s policies have delayed the day when Jihadism will be stamped out, through such idiocies as the Iraq War, Abu Grabe, Guantamino and the erosion of liberties at home. Truman is now admired for setting a framework for successfully dealing with Communism over the long haul. Bush will be remembered for retarding the development of a successful policy for defeating Fanatical Islam over the long haul.
If Jihadism has been defeated, why are the US and UK still in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Taliban is as popular as ever?
Why is the middle east road map where it was when Bush came to power?
Why will Bush not submit to inspection of his own weapons of mass destruction/ He has enough to destroy the planet 30 times over, and a track record of starting a war against Saddam Hussain who had neither the intention or wherewithal to attack the US. Furthermore, Saddam had no more to do with 9/11 than Mr. Luttwak, though after Bush’s lies 70% of Americans believed he was directly reponsibleoon the eve of the 2003 invasion.
This is a president who perpetrates the idea that the US is above the law. Might is right, eh/
I think Mr. Hitler said that.
the uncomfortable truth is that the current crop of usa foreign policy practitioners are hopelesly inept.they go off on crusades eg to democratise the me.
during the south african transition from the nats to democracy we were lucky that the the british were to quote a friend who lives in a township everywhere.otherwise the americans would have been here and we might have had civil war!
I found the article to be interesting in a number of ways.
First, one should point out what it is not. It is not an essay using any consistent strategic theory method. This is surprising considering that Luttwak is a strategic theorist, the author of a basic textbook on strategic theory, namely “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace”. He is also a Clausewitzian strategic theorist in that he pretty much follows Clausewitz’s approach in his actual analysis, as apart from his polemics.
So what is this essay? How would one categorize it? It is imo obviously a polemic, and a rather bias and ahistorical one at that. This can be proved rather quickly by comparing what Luttwak ’s approach would have been had he adopted a strategic theory approach.
First in comparing the Korean War and the current war in Iraq, the dissimilarities would be difficult to miss. In Korea, Truman was on the defensive, hoping to prop up a South Korean state which had been attacked by North Korea. The political purpose of the war was clearly limited (which of course is why MacArthur was relieved). For the most part, the US followed a strategy of attrition which is why the losses were so high relatively. In the end Truman achieved his limited goal of the survival of a South Korean state and thwarting Communist aggression.
Bush’s war in Iraq is the opposite in almost every way. Bush was the aggressor, the political purpose was essentially unlimited (the overthrow of the Saddam government, radical makeover of the Iraqi state and political identity, the domination of the Iraqi economy and natural resources, the establishment of permanent military bases to project US military power throughout the region) and the resources necessary to achieve these radical goals were never committed. Bush tried to do it all on the cheap and has failed miserably. The exact opposite of Truman, Bush failed to understand the basic strategic theory formula of political purpose/military aim/applied means or simply that achievement of the military aim (in some instances victory) provides the means to the strategic end (the return to peace with the political purpose achieved). The nature of the political purpose determining the means and the political relations the nature of the specific war in question.
Of course Luttwak sidesteps this by attempting to separate Bush’s Iraq war from the larger “war on terror”, Iraq is describes simply as a “sideshow”. He does this by introducing a counterfactual version of Bush as implementing effective political pressure on various Muslim states and individuals to desist in their jihadist loving ways, which is my second point. The actual Bush only went through the motions in this regard, with the focus (even prior to 9/11 as we now know) being a war of conquest of Iraq with perhaps a second war against Iran. Both Iraq and Iran being enemies of the “Islamic militancy” as Luttwak describes it. So in Luttwak’s counterfactual version the sideshow becomes the focus point and the focus point becomes the sideshow. The effort he puts in this bit of hocus pocus reaches its own climax with his description of Pakistan’s “overnight transformation of the very core of a country’s policy”, that is from supporter of jihad to unquestioning Bush vassal. Let’s admit on the contrary that Pakistan’s supposed “transformation” is more the nature of a superficial veneer and had much to do with cash payments and cynical opportunism, not to mention US disinterest. Again the focus was on Iraq, not any jihadist threat, the jihadist threat used as the excuse and cover for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Third, the most telling example of his lack of any strategic theory methodology in this polemic is his total reluctance to apply his own concept of “paradoxical logic” to his argument. Instead he claims to see into the distant future and that the future will look exactly as the present with no big surprises at all. This massive conflict will unfold pretty much “administratively” with the mighty American juggernaut dictating operational responses to all of its various enemies over a period of decades. The victors (including all the tyrants we support) will write the history and declare Bush a great visionary. War without friction or chance, without unintended consequences and self-defeating policies, that is without Luttwak’s own concept of “paradoxical logic”. From a strategic theory perspective in other words - a childrens’ fable.
My last point in describing this as a rather obvious polemic, is the language Luttwak uses: As in “Hard-working” to describe the US and Europe (notice how Europe is invited to join in on the fruits of Bush’s great success) and the “parasitic oil-bubble countries” of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and others. America he assures us is simply too big to fail and gets to choose between “confronting its national problems” or simply “outgrow them”, whereas normal states like China (”will the Communist party avoid collapse”) and India (”degenerating state and local governments strangle the country’s economic progress) must deal with reality. . .In all the language is chosen to appeal to a certain right-wing mindset, those circa 19% who are still supporting George W. Bush no matter what.
Which indicates what we have with this essay: A polemic by a strategic theorist who avoids any use of strategic theory at all since that would be counter to his argument; a bias piece crafted to appeal to a very specific worldview, which is the essence of what has put US policy in the strategic deadend it finds itself in today.
Two things: there is Prospect’s attempt at contrarianism, and the awful article by Luttwak itself.
Maybe Prospect’s cunning point is that if this is the best that can be done to attempt a counter-balance, then the case against Bush is made more complete. But taken at face value, this attempt to add a thoughtful rebuttal to current herd opinion on how lousy a President Bush has been falls way, way short. Indeed, the real contrarian position may be in the opposite direction.
First - that article - Luttwak’s piece is a meagre counter-weight to the growing body of evidence that the Bush administration may be the worst the US has suffered in its history. In trying to overturn this position - entirely, not just elements of it - in one go, Luttwak fails comprehensively. But why be surprised? Even heavyweight contrarians such as Christopher Hitchens only attempt to dispel conventional thinking on select parts of Bush’s actions. The Iraq invasion is a good thing, on balance, in his view, but he quickly side-steps the Bush administration torture culture, its instant international isolationism and is happy to weigh in on the standard position on the lamentable chaos post invasion.
But not Luttwak. All this is, in his view, global myopia about how there was no alternative, and Bush chose right, straight down the line. Let 20 or 30 years intervene, and we will see how the only policy was might and confidence. “The post-victory shambles in Iraq is a side-show in comparison” he says. Note the phrase - Post-victory - not post-war or post-invasion – Luttwak has already subjectively written Iraq’s history even as the present “victory” still unfolds daily.
Basically, the argument is that viewed from 2030 all the current anguish will be forgotten, and Bush’s stand against the Taliban and Saddam worth absolutely all that follows. Period.
Well, we’ll see. Afghanistan is headed back toward whence it came, Al Qaeda continues on, Iraq and Iran remain major trouble-spots and US standing in international eyes is diminished by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and so on. All this is more or less objectively defendable. All this on Bush’s watch. Whatever happens in the long-run is now not down to him, as too many major choices have to be made between then and now, and too many actors are still out there with options.
And the Truman analogue is a lazy and inappropriate one, as even Luttwak acknowledges – a conventional war against a defined State rather than an endless campaign against stateless “terror”.
Really, a better contrarian position, and more defensible by fact rather than reflexive support, is that the Bush Presidency will be seen to be much worse than we now think: what he has set in motion may be far more catastrophic than we currently assume – discuss.
Yeah, I think the noble notion of evenhandedness has done us a great disservice regarding this administration. There is a longstanding habit amongst thinking people to refrain from screed - to try to weigh both sides of an issue and to consider objectively the other side of the argument. But the effect of this has, in my opinion, to give legitimacy to that which is implicitly illegitimate. I mean, sure, it’s easy to say that time will tell. But it seems as though an awful lot of text is devoted to explaining how that the thing with feathers and webbed feet, quacking on the water, that looks exactly like a duck, might actually be a bear, or an elephant, or a good administration.
Yesterday, it was uplifting to hear President Bush speak out
against Chinese abuse of human rights in Tibet
However , the significant increase in cheap heroin available
on UK streets ( and subsequent knock-on effects for British
society etc ) as a direct result of the American administration ,
in particular Donald Rumsfeld’s alleged appeasement of the
war lords in Afghanistan, cannot be judged by history as anything less than a slow-release, long term victory for bin Ladeneers…
Or will it ? At source, pomegranates yield a higher return than opium, and according to this BBC report : ” A reformed drug-user from Swindon has persuaded poppy farmers in Afghanistan to grow pomegranates rather than poppies ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7545107.stm
Mr. Luttwak’s essay is a piece to teach from; to teach how to present an indefensible case. As I recall them, the facts post 9/11 that he seeks to overcome or sideline are:
- the event caused an immense surge of world-wide sympathy and support for the USA.
- the astoudingly able initial campiagn against the Taliban when they refused to yield up Osama Bin Laden was aided by Iran ( a natural eneemy of the viciously anti-Shia teaching of Sumnni Muslim extremism).
- Iran was also the long-standing enemy of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-based, secularist regime; and also a declared ideological opponent of communism.
- Saddam Hussein was opposed to the Saudi regime and to the Wahabi extreme of Islam - the extreme that gave birth to Al Queda - that the Saudis fostered. He had explored possible contacts with Ai Queda on the ground that they had common enemies. Those contacts had floundered in face of the evident fact that Saddam and Bin Laden were rivals for the leadership of the Arab world. Saddam’s regime was ‘Socialist’ but had firmly repressed Iraqi communism.
- Instead of treating Iran and Saddam as allies for the time being against Al Queda, Gerge W chose to pile them together with Al Queda and North Korea an an Axis of Evil which he would confront. This had three immediate consequences:
1. It excluded Iran and Iraq from the world-wide coalition against Al Queda.
2. Its evident unreality began the erosion of world-wide support for the USA
3. It marked the beginning of the diversion of US effort from the pursuit of Al Queda and their Taliban hosts (neither Bin Laden nor his closest advisers nor the Mula who leads the Taiban have yet been brought to book) to what Littwak rightly terms “sideshow”s.
- Intervention in Iraq then became the top priority. What US objective was being pursed through that intervention is still not clear. The intervention was seen as so urgent that there was no time to either mount a convincing case for it or to wait until the other powers became so fed up with Saddam that they collectively acquiesed (as the UN Security Council was close to doing).
- The initial intervention in Iraq was almost as precisely successful as the British intervention there in 1942.
- In spite of the urgency with which the intervention had been mounted, and in spite of plentiful intelligence saying in various forms “these people will give the Americans 6 months and then they will start shooting”, the Bush administration did nothing with its initial success in Iraq until a lot of Iraquis started shooting; and Al Queda had established itself amongst them.
- The fiasco of solemn and vehement assertion of the existance of, followed by the search for, non-existant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has damaged US Government credibility for the foreseeable future. (At the time of the intervention, it seemed to me from published information that the odds were roughly 6 to 4 against the existance of any WMD in Iraq. I over-estimated the risk; but nowhere nearly so badly as the Bush Administration).
- Iraq continues to divert effort from the main task of pursuing Al Queda. This still centres in and on the borders of Afghanistan. The Taliban have reformed and regained a great deal of ground under the benign shelter of the Bush administration’s giving priority to Iraq and being ineffective there for so long.
- Littwak rightly records that Muslim governments and societies now have much less tolerance for Al Queda and similar extremists. The same is true of the CIA and other Western intelligence bodies. Before the fall of communism, these extremists were seen as allies of a sort. After 9/11, everyone began to see them as a threat. It is not unusual for any of us to react against organisations which we see as a threat. US policy was not very relevant.
- the fact that the USA under George W has looked militarily over stretched with Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands has undobtedly made the USA less militarily credible elsewhere.
- the George W administration continues to preach the message of human rights. The various misadventures in Iraqui jails, in other aspects of the occupation, in covert renditions, in Guatanamo Bay, and in “collateral damage” to the innocent have weakened that message continually.
For those of us who remember the Truman Administration and its ending, Luttwak’s attempted paralell and contrast with it does not convince. Truman’s priorities in foreign policy became clearer and clearer with time, not more muddled. At the end of his administration, the US was militarily stretched, but he had more than begun building up the additional force needed to meet that challenge. He had (through adroit use of Stalin’s error) secured UN support in Korea. Stalin and Mao understood that ground offensives would not be walk-overs. This we saw at the time. Truman was tired; a change of adninistration was overdue. He was not a victor in foreign affairs, but I never saw him as a failure. (Some journalists and commentators did; but some are always attacking the old to curry favour with the new). The only real parallel is there: it is time for George W to go as it was time for Harry Truman to go. However, Harry went with his laurels. George W. goes with the sadness of having brought about his own failure.
The premises of this article are
1) There was a huge Islamic threat before 9/11
2) That American Foreign policy on its own made this go away
3) That this was all down to Bush’s leadership
Sooo…
1) How many people (apart from Russians - that was US-funded) had been killed by Islamists before 9/11 and before the two illegal invasions? How does this compare with the IRA, or Basque separatism, or the Hutus and the Tutsi’s?
Or to take the rogue state line, which is the state in the middle East currently equipped with illegal nuclear weapons? (give you a clue it starts with an I and ends with an srael.)
2) Hmmm, well, when you consider that the US keeps on breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and keeps on signing deals with proliferating states like India, despite their record for getting into regional conflicts, the case for a de-nuclearising US foreign policy looks shaky. Yes, Bush has managed to bully a few Muslim states, but no, this has not turned the tide around nuclear weapons, and since it has all been based on force, has not changed hearts and minds. So really the approach is more a quick fix that won’t last, than a cure based on a long-term foreign policy vision.
3) I think that Bush had a team around him that did most of his thinking for him. Hence the whole reading stories about Goats for an age after 9/11 happened…
Weak article, not sure why Prospect printed it other than perhaps to provoke people a bit.
Hi,interesting article by a guy who thinks he has discovered the true pulse of a presidency. If Bush’s war on terror has been successful, why then is the Taliban re-arming in Afghanistan? Iraq, far from being a neutralized non-terrorist state, is the haven for suicide bombers and radicalist thinking. Muslims as far as Phillipines and Sudan, find common purpose in the Palestinian cause and anti-American militancy mostly as a direct result of Bush’s foreign policy and his active complicity with the gross violations of human rights in the occupied territories. While the author is expedient to score cheap political points by outlining Zakaria’s intellectual failings, his complete omission of Israel/Palestine and Bush’s pathetic Road Map to Peace render this article inchoate and serving as a rationalization of his lonely support for a failed presidency. His omission of Hamas’ victory in democractic elections smacks of ignorance bordering on stupidity. He is quick to remind us of the dramatic turn in treatment of jihadis from Pakistan to Libya. Yet he ignores that anti-american sentiment is at unprecedented levels in the world today. In Teheran where over a million people marched in solidarity with the victims of 9/11 waving American flags and yes, posters of George Bush, today burn those very flags and posters and effigees . The Bush government in pursuing a middle-century isolationist ‘crusade’ with no semblance of legitimacy has undermined every international charter to which it is a signatory. The Bush government’s dithering on the definition of torture, Guantanamo, its explicit support for the dictatorial Saudi royal family are symptoms of a malaise in foreign policy so deep as to be truly cancerous. It is potshot attacks by pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself that undermine genuine discussion on what merits he may or may not possess.
Further, the criticism of Zakaria’s thesis on America’s educational decline is fallible to say the least. It is evident that either the author did not read Zakaria’s thesis or did so in so fleeting a manner as to ignore the message entirely. It is true, the education system of America is perhaps unrivalled in the world. However, the rapidly declining numbers of US citizens who pursue studies in Science and Engineering is at its lowest ever. The number of high school teachers in Science and Math who had majored in these subjects is less than 30% according to a Pew figure. The increasingly hostile immigration policies of the US govt are driving away the very intellectual talent that has fired American progress for decades. Yet all this seems to have escaped the notice of the writer entirely. A weak thesis and an ever weaker defence of it.
Here is how I would summarize the author’s arguments:
Gee, it sure was lucky that the US had an unsophisticated binary thinker who liked to thwack things in place when 9/11 happened. Surely no other approach could have produced positive results, hard as they might be to discern. Oh, and the author thinks that Zakaria and Friedman get too much press…
Unbelievable. While Harry Truman was at best a mediocre president, whose current reputation is all out of line with his actual achievements, there is simply no comparison between his administration and George Bush’s. Putting aside the fact that Bush and his cronies ginned up a phony war, the rampant across-the-board corruption, the growth of mercenary groups like Blackwater, and the lockstep adherence to the extreme right-wing’s agenda to roll back the 20th Century (the Geneva Conventions, United Nations, NATO, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and on and on) is enough to make him go down as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had, right up there with two other infamous Republicans: Herbert Hoover and William McKinley.
As an historian, Luttwak should know this: What are the 180,000 mercenaries Blackwater has in Iraq going to do when that war ends? They don’t owe allegiance to the US President. Remember Rome: they built an armed force of mercenaries, who then turned against them.
It feels good to be a contrarian, to remove oneself from the mainstream of opinion, and to carve out ones own little niche of thought. A roll of the dice that one will be perceived as prescient instead of a totally off the wall crackpot. The Bush as Great President trope is starting to make the rounds gaining momentum as his own people abandon ship and the public swings against him. If everyone thinks anything then it must be wrong. It has the added benefit of selling books and sparking hits on web pages as outraged people violently react to tripe being presented as bold thought. Nice job. Unless the standard of measure becomes so corrupted as to be meaningless Bush will go down in history as a silly, infantile empty suit appointed to allow a cretin like Cheney carte Blanche with American foreign policy. And let us not forget the shredding of our constitution, the reducing of the US to a terror state that tortures its prisoners, the elevation of the Presidency to a lawless Potentate and many other high crimes and misdemeanors. Too many people, based on a blind support of Israel, accept bad policies with a enemy of my enemy is my friend approach, Like Mr Lieberman. History is written by the victors, and rewritten by the ambitious.
More proof that ideology can trump rationality any day of the week. You see what you believe, friends. Does anyone really believe that opposition to US foreign policy has been disarmed? Ha ha ha. Very funny. Bush’s policies have created a whole army of militants against us. They have more sympathy thanks to our insane foreign policy. Hope you are thanking Mr. Bush when these nuts strike again.
“Jihadism has been largely confined to Iraq and the border zones of Pakistan, where guns are fashion statements a