Historians view of Bush

[leatherneck]

To the extent historians ultimately write that Bush and his administration allowed their predisposed opinions on Hussein to cloud the Bush administration's judgement, to you think that they will discuss whether prior administrations' (both Republican and Democratic) failure to rein in Hussein was in part or perhaps in whole responsible for the Bush administration's predisposition? In other words, were prior administrations failure to address Hussein a cause for the current administration's belief that they had to remove Hussein as soon as possible (if for argument's sake they had such predisposition)?

[Jim Schue]

I kind of see what you are saying. It seems that blame would fall most on Ronald Reagan and GHWB. Reagan certainly had the influence to rein in Sadaam, and GHWB definitely had the means. After the first Gulf War, Sadaam was pretty well walled in and didn't have many chances to harm his neighbors. As far as Clinton goes, for him to have done anything more would've been blocked by the GOP-led House and Senate, if for no other reason than it would've been an acknowledgement that GHWB's efforts had failed.

[Jumper_Dad]

Let me get this straight Jim, you think Clinton is completely blameless. For Iraq or for all of the isues in the mid east? I am not absolving GHWB or GWB but to say Clinton could have done nothing else is absurd.

[Jim Schue]

Let me get this straight Jim, you think Clinton is completely blameless. For Iraq or for all of the isues in the mid east? I am not absolving GHWB or GWB but to say Clinton could have done nothing else is absurd.

 

I can blame Bill Clinton for a lot of things, but the handling of Sadaam is hardly one of them. Sadaam was completely boxed in following Gulf War I and no longer posed a threat to his neighbors. There was no need for action on his part, and any he would've taken would likely have been shot down by a GOP-led House and Senate.

 

What else would you blame him for?

[HHSDad]

Fifty years down the road, historians will be talking about 100 years of failed and poorly planned Mideast diplomacy and a complete misunderstanding of the people who lived there by not only the United States but by every major country in the world. This diplomacy failure lead to turmoil, revolution, the use of terrorist nukes, and finally the exchange of ICBMs by Israel, Iran, Pakistan and India.

 

We won't be blaming any particular US president because we'll still be cleaning up the mess and burying the dead.

 

What I'm getting at is that this disaster in SW Asia has been a long time coming. Long-term, if you want to place blame, you may as well spin the bottle and start whereever it points.

[rockmom]

Fifty years down the road, historians will be talking about 100 years of failed and poorly planned Mideast diplomacy and a complete misunderstanding of the people who lived there by not only the United States but by every major country in the world. This diplomacy failure lead to turmoil, revolution, the use of terrorist nukes, and finally the exchange of ICBMs by Israel, Iran, Pakistan and India.

 

We won't be blaming any particular US president because we'll still be cleaning up the mess and burying the dead.

 

What I'm getting at is that this disaster in SW Asia has been a long time coming. Long-term, if you want to place blame, you may as well spin the bottle and start whereever it points.

 

:thumb:

[All Tell]

If we are playing a place the blame game then I think that a large portion of it has to be served up to Jimmy Carter. He let Iran basically hold him hostage for over a year. IMVHO he basically folded after the failed rescue attempt and pretty much sent the message that the United States had no stomach for a fight. That as much as anything, again IMVHO, gave people like Bin Laden the idea that if you hit US hard enough we will just back down.

[Jim Schue]

If we are playing a place the blame game then I think that a large portion of it has to be served up to Jimmy Carter. He let Iran basically hold him hostage for over a year. IMVHO he basically folded after the failed rescue attempt and pretty much sent the message that the United States had no stomach for a fight. That as much as anything, again IMVHO, gave people like Bin Laden the idea that if you hit US hard enough we will just back down.

 

I'll grant that Carter set a bad precedent w/re to dealing tough with the ME. But the original question was who should be blamed for this administration's single-mindedness toward ousting Sadaam. I don't know that Carter had any dealings with Iraq whatsoever, and Iraq didn't really emerge as a regional power (and as a potential ally to the US) until the war with Iran, which began in 1980.

[rockcastleraiders]

Fifty years down the road, historians will be talking about 100 years of failed and poorly planned Mideast diplomacy and a complete misunderstanding of the people who lived there by not only the United States but by every major country in the world. This diplomacy failure lead to turmoil, revolution, the use of terrorist nukes, and finally the exchange of ICBMs by Israel, Iran, Pakistan and India.

 

We won't be blaming any particular US president because we'll still be cleaning up the mess and burying the dead.

 

What I'm getting at is that this disaster in SW Asia has been a long time coming. Long-term, if you want to place blame, you may as well spin the bottle and start whereever it points.

 

Dead-on. Bullseye!

[Jim Schue]

Fifty years down the road, historians will be talking about 100 years of failed and poorly planned Mideast diplomacy and a complete misunderstanding of the people who lived there by not only the United States but by every major country in the world. This diplomacy failure lead to turmoil, revolution, the use of terrorist nukes, and finally the exchange of ICBMs by Israel, Iran, Pakistan and India.

 

We won't be blaming any particular US president because we'll still be cleaning up the mess and burying the dead.

 

What I'm getting at is that this disaster in SW Asia has been a long time coming. Long-term, if you want to place blame, you may as well spin the bottle and start whereever it points.

 

I definitely agree with this scary possibility. The bottom line is no one has come up with a reasonable solution, other than complete isolation of the region — economically, dimplomatically and militarily — and I don't know how realistically that solution could be implemented.

[HHSDad]

If we are playing a place the blame game then I think that a large portion of it has to be served up to Jimmy Carter. He let Iran basically hold him hostage for over a year. IMVHO he basically folded after the failed rescue attempt and pretty much sent the message that the United States had no stomach for a fight. That as much as anything, again IMVHO, gave people like Bin Laden the idea that if you hit US hard enough we will just back down.

I agree, but 4 years later Reagan did the same thing in Lebanon when he pulled the Marines out after the barracks bombing. We've failed over and over to show the people of the Mideast that we have any testosterone. Even the past two wars failed at that. First, we failed to hunt down Hussein after the first Gulf War (I know it wasn't our fault). Then we choose to fight these "compassionate" wars which the people there totally don't understand. They see it as a sign of weakness.

[All Tell]

I'll grant that Carter set a bad precedent w/re to dealing tough with the ME. But the original question was who should be blamed for this administration's single-mindedness toward ousting Sadaam. I don't know that Carter had any dealings with Iraq whatsoever, and Iraq didn't really emerge as a regional power (and as a potential ally to the US) until the war with Iran, which began in 1980.

 

IMVHO without the enboldening of the Iranian government during the hostage fiasco there is no Iran/Iraq war and as such no need for the United States to assist Saddam against a common enemy and Saddam never becomes the threat that he was.

[Jim Schue]

IMVHO without the enboldening of the Iranian government during the hostage fiasco there is no Iran/Iraq war and as such no need for the United States to assist Saddam against a common enemy and Saddam never becomes the threat that he was.

 

Iraq invaded Iran to start this war. I don't know how the emboldening of the Iranian government from the hostage fiasco has anything to do with them defending themselves.

[All Tell]

Iraq invaded with the blessing (and aid) of the United States. Had Carter addressed the Iranian situation more agressively when he had the chance it wouldn't have been necessary. IMVHO that is the reason that Carter is now so vocal in his criticism of President Bush. He knows that we are here in a large part because of him and his inaction.

[H]

To the extent historians ultimately write that Bush and his administration allowed their predisposed opinions on Hussein to cloud the Bush administration's judgement, to you think that they will discuss whether prior administrations' (both Republican and Democratic) failure to rein in Hussein was in part or perhaps in whole responsible for the Bush administration's predisposition? In other words, were prior administrations failure to address Hussein a cause for the current administration's belief that they had to remove Hussein as soon as possible (if for argument's sake they had such predisposition)?

 

I would say that the phrase "failure to rein in Hussein" is a bit vague. Prior administrations may not have invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (which certainly reined him in all right), but they did succeed in containing him very successfully for 12 years with economic sanctions and the militarily-enforced no fly zones. Don't forget that there were no active weapons programs of any consequence going on in Iraq at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, so I would say that Saddam was already "reined in" pretty effectively from a pragmatic standpoint. Without the (completely unrelated) attacks of Sept 11, the Iraq war would have been an answer to a question nobody asked. Yet the Bush administration was considering it before Sept 11.