That George W Bush's foreign policy has been a total failure is now taken for granted by so many people that one usually hears it stated as a simple truth that need not be argued at all.

It has happened before. When President Harry S Truman said in March 1952 that he would not seek re-election, most Americans could agree on one thing: that his foreign policy had been a catastrophic failure. In Korea his indecision had invited aggression, and then his incompetence had cost the lives of some 54,000 Americans and millions of Korean civilians in just two years of fighting—on both counts more than ten times the number of casualties in Iraq. Right-wingers reviled Truman for having lost China to communism and for his dismissal of the great General Douglas MacArthur, who had wanted to win it back, with nukes if necessary. Liberals despised Truman because he was the failed shopkeeper who had usurped the patrician Franklin Roosevelt's White House—liberals always were the snobs of US politics.

Abroad, Truman was widely hated too. The communist accusation that he had waged "bacteriological warfare" to kill Korean children and destroy Chinese crops was believed by many, and was fully endorsed by a 669-page report issued by a commission chaired by the eminent British biochemist Joseph Needham. Even more people believed that Truman was guilty of having started the cold war by trying to intimidate our brave Soviet ally, or at least that he and Stalin were equally to blame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The author seems to think that history will view Bush's foreign policies in a much more favorable light than many people currently do. I have to admit, depending on what happens over the next several years, I'm inclined to agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The article makes claims against Truman not in evidence.

By 1952 the Marshall plan was a clear success. The Russell committee investigation had made public enough details about MacArthur that Truman's dismissal was no longer unpopular. MacArthur's address to the GOP convention in 1952 further convinced Americans that Truman had done the right thing.

The claims about how history will judge GWB fails in many ways. Just as the Japanese internment during WWII has been a long term mar on the record of FDR GWB will never escape the spectre of the mass imprisonment and harassment of Arab-Americans. The huge increase in the federal debt will not be forgotten nor forgiven. The unitary executive theory and its eager acceptance by the administartion will be a prominent negative. The stubborn refusal to allow stem cell research and the subsequent loss of that emergent industry to other nations will become a very important point as the biotech revolution accelerates. The cavalier disregard for treaties and the active evasion of basic tenets of international law will be another unforgettable negative. Finally and this is where the verdict of history will be most damning, on 9-12-2001 it was possible to assemble a grand coalition of the nations of the world in opposition to terrorism with the USA at the head and able to use the good will generated by the attack to improve the world and greatly reduce terror against all peoples but GWB squandered it by making the war on terror about something besides going after terrorists and their supporters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc.......

We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office.

You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one.
In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The article certainly looks at bushie's foreign policy record thru rose colored glasses,especially where it pertains to the ISI in Pakistan.The New York Times just today ran a story on the ISI's troubling ties to militant Islamic factions,the CIA station in Afghanistan has been long sounding the alarm over the far too cozy relationship between the ISI and these militant organizations.Pakistan appears to be double-dealing with us in this area and has been paying lip service to "the war on terror" all along,while asking that anti-terror funds be diverted to upgrading the Pakistani Air Force an arm of their military with no anti-terror role...In my opinion little bushie will never be held in the same regard as Truman a truly great President..

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it?

In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc.......

We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office.

You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one.
In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about.......

Well, I dunno, philo.

Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it?

In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it).

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The article makes claims against Truman not in evidence.

By 1952 the Marshall plan was a clear success. The Russell committee investigation had made public enough details about MacArthur that Truman's dismissal was no longer unpopular. MacArthur's address to the GOP convention in 1952 further convinced Americans that Truman had done the right thing.

The claims about how history will judge GWB fails in many ways. Just as the Japanese internment during WWII has been a long term mar on the record of FDR GWB will never escape the spectre of the mass imprisonment and harassment of Arab-Americans. The huge increase in the federal debt will not be forgotten nor forgiven. The unitary executive theory and its eager acceptance by the administartion will be a prominent negative. The stubborn refusal to allow stem cell research and the subsequent loss of that emergent industry to other nations will become a very important point as the biotech revolution accelerates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The cavalier disregard for treaties and the active evasion of basic tenets of international law will be another unforgettable negative. Finally and this is where the verdict of history will be most damning, on 9-12-2001 it was possible to assemble a grand coalition of the nations of the world in opposition to terrorism with the USA at the head and able to use the good will generated by the attack to improve the world and greatly reduce terror against all peoples but GWB squandered it by making the war on terror about something besides going after terrorists and their supporters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it?

In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it).

One indicator of the coming surge in islamic extremism is the Iraqi refugee issue. Refugees are a prime breeding ground for terrorists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And how long will they be middle or upper class living in refugee camps or in displaced community's

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:



In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests?

Firm

Well given the CIA's own concerns I am of the opinion that they have gotten back in bed with the militant's while their government pays lip service to our interest's.Quantifying it beyond that is an exercise in semantics...They are playing us ,the level to which we are being played matters not to me...I don't like being played at any level...

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc.......

We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office.

You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one.
In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about.......

Well, I dunno, philo.

Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it?

In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it).

Firm

....fair question. i'd echo Condoleeza Rice, at least to a point.......
"For 60 years, my country – the United States – pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East. And we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people."
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1396950.htm

....whether or not the US is fostering democracy is not the point i'm trying to make here. It's that someone who has been the architect of at least some US foreign policy recognises the nature of its failure. As to whether or not she's succeeded in changing the paradigm that led to this failure i'll leave to another discussion. However, as of 2005, Ms Rice appears to agree with me that US foreign policy has concentrated too much on self interest in the middle east. The result is a generation of extremists who feel that the US is plundering the region. such a perception inevitably leads to sophistic, religious justifications. The seeds of 9/11 were planted a generation or more ago. Unless US foreign policy recognises this it will always proceed from false assumptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it?

In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it).

One indicator of the coming surge in islamic extremism is the Iraqi refugee issue. Refugees are a prime breeding ground for terrorists.

Perhaps. But what is your basis for saying this?

My understanding is that the majority of the refugees are middle to upper middle class, and primarily Sunni. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve (and all indications are that it will), isn't it likely that they will return?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:



In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests?

Firm

Well given the CIA's own concerns I am of the opinion that they have gotten back in bed with the militant's while their government pays lip service to our interest's.Quantifying it beyond that is an exercise in semantics...They are playing us ,the level to which we are being played matters not to me...I don't like being played at any level...