Suppose the Iraqi conflict ends in such a way that ends whatever threeat IRaq may pose, brings stability to the region and there is no war (Best Case Scenario). Will Bush get credit for forcing the issue and using a big stick, or will folks say that the Bush administration was wrong and look, a peaceful resoolution was achieved, but only because f the dissenting voices at home and aborad reigned in the PResident’s ambition. Of course, I expect that someone’s opinion of Bush’s opinion already would color how they feel. My oipinion is that if this ends with Iraq disarming and there is no war then Bush deserves a helluva lot of credit.
Well, I suppose it would depend on how this far fetched scenario came about. In any case, I suspect that the result would be Republicans claiming Bush forced the issue and all credit should go to him, and Democrats would claim that it happened in spite of him and all credit should go elsewhere.
Only history can really answer this as over time exactly what was happening becomes apparent. As Neurotik said the republicans (including Bush of course) will all claim it was their amazing cleverness and hard-nose attitude that saw it through. Democrats will claim we’re lucky we all made it through alive and no one got hurt.
History can be the only judge in this. Give it 20 years or so and we should have a fairly good take on who gets credit if this situation comes to pass.
France, Germany, Russia and the UN would likely expect a big chunk of the credit for averting war themselves. That’ll also work against any claims by the administration.
And the people will ask: “How could they have let this happen?”
I didn’t realize you had a crystal ball, Latro. You must make a killing in the stock market.
Because of course the war will happen
I am, as a matter of fact.
Obviously, my sarcasm leaves something to be desired.
Bush has offered such a complete spectrum of objectives and rationales for this that, no matter what happens, he’ll be able to pick out the ones that match and claim to have succeeded. And his cheerleaders will, misty-eyed, acclaim his leadership and foresight.
Historians will, as already noted, have their own views.
The fact that there are inspections going on now is due, in large part, because of the threat of war. Said threat being at leat 99% Bush. I’m not sure about all possible scenarios, but if S. Husein flees the country before a war errupts, Bush will go down as the one of the greatest military strategists of all time. I expect this will not happen, though, and that we’ll be at war before St. Paddy’s day.
True but if Saddam bugs out and Bush doesn’t get him I think it will be in spite of what Bush wanted and not because it was what he set out to do.
My cynical side says this whole thing has Wag the Dog written all over it. Bush wants a war to keep people’s minds off the crappy economy (remember why his dad lost after he kicked Iraq’s ass? “It’s the economy stupid!”).
In spite of. Obviously. Even though one could argue that Saddam is only making token steps towards getting rid of his supposed weapons of mass destruction and what have you, Bush consistently blows off every overture that everyone makes. He seems to be like a berserker or something.
Fine. Let him have the credit. If it will save thousands of lives, let him have a ticker tape parade down every main street in the country. I’ll even promise to vote for him. Rather nail my pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire, but I’ll promise.
If he’ll just back away from this utterly stupid damn war.
Man, “Wagging the Dog” is a meaningless cliche at this point. Every time the president makes a foreign policy decision when there is some strife at home, someone claims he is “Wagging the Dog”, well let’s make something clear. “There will always be foreign policy decisions to be made and there will always be problems at home.”
If peace comes about it will be from many factors, Bush’s saber rattling not to be discounted. The dialogue we are seeing from Germany and France would not have existed without this.
Not to mention our hegemony over the region is already increased, whether we go to war or not, we’ve already benefitted. We have new bases all over the place.
We’ll need to see the secret White House audio tapes. Only then will we know if all the War Talk is merely posturing, or if Bush & Co. feel their plans for invasion are being thwarted by France et al. Without knowing what the inner circle are thinking among themselves, we don’t know if the threat of war is a bluff or not.
At this point, I’d be inclined to give Bush credit for effectively wielding the Big Stick. But I’ll rescind that credit if I later learn that the prime objective was going to war, and that the Bad Cop routine was never an act.
One could argue, I suppose. Or one could cite UN weapons inspectors instead.
As for the OP, if peace prevails for any reason, history will look upon the Franco-German axis as the hero.
Let him get the credit, by all means. If the price of avoiding a war were to declare Mr. Bush Imperator and a living God, I’d be among the first to sacrifice at his altar.
I think the real question is: “Do the ends justify the means?”
This is one question i never could go one way or the other on.
The thing is: i dont think he has the peaceful solution in mind, i think he wants this war. So if he achieves a peaceful solution it will be by accident in my view, therefore i dont think he deserves the credit.
John Mace said:
“I’m not sure about all possible scenarios, but if S. Husein flees the country before a war errupts, Bush will go down as the one of the greatest military strategists of all time.”
Someone hit you with a hyperbole stick? This may be Bush’s strategy and it may work but it’s hardly Rommel-Patton level. In fact this “strategy” only works when your military is stronger than all competitors’ combined. Luckily for Bush he happens to control such a military.