Bush's Legacy

In the contest for the best comment on whether I should stop bashing Bush, this is the winning entry:

Bush Bashing in it's own place

by astral swamper on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 2:52pm

Thomas,
Here's my main point. Let's pretend that I, Douglas Hardee, am
Commander-in-Chief of the US military. I call you in for a briefing on
Afghanistan based on your reputation as a renowned author and military expert. I begin by saying to you, "Thomas, as a military historian, you know that when a commander finds himself in a "shit storm" with no easy answers, a reluctant public and reticent allies, as I do, you need the best possible council. Hell, right now, all of America needs the best possible information we can get. What's your take on the situation on in Afghanistan, Thomas?" Well, If you make bashing Bush part of your briefing, I know right away you're blowing smoke up my skirt. When you're in a foxhole Thomas, you don't waste complaining about the SOB that got us into it, you find ways to effectively fight our way out of the situation. If you were briefing me "not to dither"in that blog, and you pull the old Bush-Bashing routine, I would assume, as President, that you had an axe to grind, and I would assume it would only be a matter of time before you turned on me.
As I said, it's not that Bush doesn't need a retroactive butt kicking,
it's just it doesn't belong in the same blog as a "tough love" note to
Obama. It comes off as ass-kissing to the WaPo Dinner party set.
Thomas, I'll make it simple for you you; A little more Keegan &
Morrison, a little less Olberman & Mathews.
All the best,
Semper Fi

I am picking it not because I agree with it, nor even because it persuaded me. More, it struck me as a well-reasoned approach. I tend to learn more from people with whom I disagree. So even if I do bash Bush again (and I suspect I will), when I do, this will be in the back of my mind -- that is, is this comment really necessary? Is there a more constructive way to go at this?

I've e-mailed Mr. Hardee to ask him whether he wants a signed copy of one of my books, or my extra copy of Horne's The Price of Glory.

Now, what is an "astral swamper"? This must be one of the few phrases in the world for which you could get no Google results -- until now.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A thoughtful reader of this blog advises me to drop the Bush bashing. He thinks it is unseemly and looks like a sop to my leftist readers (do you hear me over there in the amen corner?)

His heart is in the right place, and so I promised to think on his note. I have. But what I keep coming back to is this: I think President Bush's decisions were so disastrous that we will be paying for them for years, particularly with Iraq. So I am inclined to keep pointing out the costs of what may have been the worst set of foreign policy decisions ever made. But I'd like to hear from readers: Is it time to put a moratorium on exploring why Bush may have been the worst president? Best post on this wins a free signed copy of any one of my books. If you've already got the complete set, then you can have my extra copy of Alistair Horne's The Price of Glory. 

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Hardly a day goes by without the op-ed page of the Washington Post carrying an article by a veteran of the Bush Administration holding forth on foreign policy. Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter and policy advisor, even has a regular columnist gig. And today Yosemite Sam advocates bombing Iran. It's as if in 1969, the people who brought us to disaster in Vietnam were constantly writing on how to build on their success-and expand the war to Thailand, Malaysia, and Burma. 

dno1967/Flickr

I asked my old Washington Post colleague Brad Graham, whose new book on Donald Rumsfeld is just about out, to explain to me the difference between Rumsfeld and his successor, Robert Gates. Specifically, as some astute readers asked here the other day, why when Rumsfeld poses questions it is meddlesome micro-management, while when Gates does it he is being Churchillian?

Here is Brad's reply:

It does appear that Gates, who after succeeding Rumsfeld seemed bent on setting himself apart from his predecessor in approach and tone, has in some ways come to mirror him. The micromanaging and the overruling of the military chiefs are just a couple of examples. Indeed, as Ryan Henry, who worked under both Rumsfeld and Gates, told me when I was writing the biography, the longer Gates has served, the more he has come to understand why Rumsfeld was the way he was.

But in personal style, Gates has remained distinctly different from Rumsfeld, and this has been a key to his success. He has shown little of the arrogance, the dismissiveness, the discourtesy of his predecessor. He has managed to convey firmness and decisiveness without being overbearing and offensive. Most significantly, he has restored a measure of accountability without breeding deep resentment and making himself unpopular. While Rumsfeld in six years fired only one top official (Tom White), Gates in two-and-a-half years has already removed six (Harvey, Pace, Fallon, Wynn, Moseley and McKiernan). And yet Gates has none of the bullying, domineering image that Rumsfeld seemed to cultivate. Rather, he has demonstrated an ability to exercise strong civilian leadership with reason and just cause.

Significantly, too, Gates has brought a sense of balance to a Pentagon that Rumsfeld had kept in a swirl. His lack of flare and self-promotion have been a relief after the theatrics of his predecessor. In the Rumsfeld tradition, Gates has persisted in prodding the military to think outside its box. But he has taken a quieter approach and, at the same time, refocused the military transformation process. He talks less about what might be needed for future wars, placing more emphasis on current needs and on how to wage unconventional warfare better.

You didn't ask, but the question of Rumsfeld versus McNamara also may be of interest, since McNamara is the only other Pentagon leader whose term rivals Rumsfeld's for controversy. Both Rumsfeld and McNamara came to the Pentagon from the corporate world exhibiting arrogance and impatience, and both showed similar characteristics in office: keen analytical minds, insatiable appetites for data, predilections for new methods and approaches for problem solving. McNamara may have been more soullessly analytical, and Rumsfeld more intuitive, but both sought tighter civilian control of the military and ordered reappraisals of U.S. strategy. Both also brought with them contingents of civilian aides who shared their determination to shake things up and a propensity to clash with the Joint Chiefs. And both became embroiled in unpopular wars.

Where they differed most notably was in how they ultimately viewed their own tenures. Despite his public cheerleading for the Vietnam War, McNamara privately became dubious about its wisdom and effectiveness while still in office. In later years, he increasingly recognized that he had failed as defense secretary because of mistakes he and others had made in Vietnam. By contrast, Rumsfeld did not leave office doubting his handling of the Iraq War. He has acknowledged no major missteps or shown any remorse on the subject to date. Asked in my final interview with him last fall whether he harbored any regrets, Rumsfeld sounded tired of such queries. "Oh, that's the favorite press question," he quipped."

Officials at the county jail in Hardin, Montana, say they have plenty of Big Sky room for Gtmo detainees. Thanks for stepping up, fellows.

I once spent the night in Hardin and enjoyed it, but I also enjoyed leaving the next morning, heading out to the Little Bighorn battlefield. (The coolest part of my family's visit was attending the opening of the evening pow-wow of the Crow Fair, "the world's largest gathering of teepees," at which the color guard wore both their military uniforms -- Army, Navy and Marine, as I recall -- and their Indian headdresses.) Montana's three-man congressional delegation, which is two-thirds Democratic, opposes this, of course. Just when you think the waterboard-accepting U.S. Congress couldn't get any more disappointing, it does. 

I hate the fact that my country's leaders panicked after 9/11 and embraced torture. It saddens me to watch this.

I can still remember when it was the bad guys who tortured people in the movies. Here's the test I think is useful for judging abuse: What would I think of this being used against captured U.S. military personnel? Or kidnapped reporters?

This trend doesn't involve just elite men. The note below is from Jessica, who raises a couple of interesting themes. First is that joining the military seems to be almost a form of rebellion for these children of the elite. Jessica's mother and father are "fairly appalled at my decision." The difference between this and other rebellious activity is that many peers don't seem to get it, either.

I am using this with her permission, and have deleted her last name at her request:

I am a recent college graduate-certainly not of an Ivy League school, but a respectable one I think. I'm female, have a degree in Political Science, I'm 23, and I too am seeking a commission in the US Marine Corps. I don't come from a military family (they are, in fact, fairly appalled at my decision), I don't have college loans to pay off (it's come to my attention that this is a motivator for a lot of people), and I haven't had trouble finding a job in the recent economic turmoil, I reached my decision long before Wall Street went to hell. Usually when I tell people what I am doing I get the usual looks: disbelief, skepticism, puzzlement, sometimes disgust. And I'm always asked "why?".  I can't speak to the motivations of others; I think your comments were pretty spot-on. But, I'd like to add mine to the mix.

My decision was almost reactionary. As you said, those of us who are in or just graduating college have lived in a Post 9/11 world for almost half of our lives and this had severely changed my perspective on the world and my relation to it. When I look at my peers -- watching the Hills, drinking away their weekends (and sometimes weekdays), and just burdening society with their existence...I am disgusted. It seems like some of us feel we are owed something just because we're born American. The sense of service is gone. We've become so selfish and lazy that we can scarcely do anything for ourselves. It bothers me. I don't want to be grouped in with a generation who only knows how to hold their hands out. 

As Nate Fick wrote in One Bullet Away (I paraphrase, I don't have the book with me) "I wanted to do something so hard no one could ever talk shit to me, something that might kill me." Seeking out hardship puzzles people but luckily there will always be those, like the Ivy Leaguers you've talked to, who will run headlong into and only look back to scream "follow me!"

I am seeking a commission as a Marine Officer because I believe that nothing in this world is free. I want to serve my country and I want to make a difference in the lives of others...however small. We have all our lives to make money and seek easy living...but while we are young, healthy, and intelligent don't we owe it to our country to be more?

I'd also like to say that I read Making the Corps during my decision-making process (I was torn between the Corps and the Navy). The book and it descriptions of the esprit de corps and the brotherhood (and hopefully sisterhood, ha) awed me. The Marine Corps seemed like the last Spartan society in the world and I knew I wanted to be a part of it. As of right now, my application is at the selection board for OCC-201, with a little luck I'll be shipping to Quantico in May. So thanks."

Also, if you haven't been studying the responses that have been posted to this item, you might have missed this interesting observation from another reader that the trend might have been reinforced by recent changes in the government and the military:

I agree with many of the comments made in response to your post. Going to a liberal New England prep school and then an "elite" university, I was surrounded by friends who were for the most part against the war in Iraq, somewhat indifferent to the war in Afghanistan and ridiculed the Bush administration. The only thing I might add to previous comments is that since a lot of us 20 something's graduated, many of the military leaders who supported the invasion of Iraq have been replaced by men who were against the war at its conception. Rather than wash their hands of a war they were against, they have taken responsibility for arguably the hardest parts of both engagements. For a generation who grew up reading about scandals in the White House and watching politicians do everything possible to avoid accountability, at least personally, seeing General Petraeus before Congress asking for a surge and taking personal responsibility for the result made quite an impression."

Finally, check out this comment from last weekend, which to my mind  reinforces the sense that the new administration is attracting a new sort of officer:

I'm a college sophomore who has worked in Sudan and as a Field Organizer for the Obama campaign. It's Marines PLC for me."

Reader comments on these three? Is there something new and different going on here?

Angela Radulescu/flickr

Atrocities happen in war -- got it. We have the military chain of command and justice system to handle those violations. So the goal should be to go after those who crossed the line and made torture official policy. That was wrong, and I think illegal. 

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images