Bush Legacy Part Two
OK Folks, as promised, here is part two of the Bush Legacy. In the future, when the Bush administration is reviewed by history, two accomplishments will be evident. The first is evident now, but only historical reflection will fully illustrate the importance. This is the administration’s valiant effort to keep the economy functioning after the 9/11 attacks. This was covered in part one and is in the monthly archives.
The second accomplishment can only be viewed from a historical perspective.
It will be debated and disagreed upon by many, especially the peace at all costs element. It will eventually become apparent that Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq broke a chain of events targeting Americans and American interests that had been taking place for over a generation. There are other benefits to these actions that can be lauded now, such as the removal of a despot, the advancement of women’s rights in these societies, the free elections, and the reaction of such states as Libya renouncing terrorism and opening up to allow for inspections of their weapons capabilities. This action by Libya is but a nuance of what has happened within the transnational terrorist communities as a result of the U.S. military involvement.
The U.S. had developed the reputation as being nothing but saber rattlers in reaction to attacks upon Americans and their interests here and abroad. Going back to the seventies with the attacks on our soil by Puerto Rican radicals, the multitude of attacks in the eighties by fundamental Islamic radicals, the nineties attacks on our embassies, the World Trade Center, by fundamental Islamic radicals and even the Oklahoma attack and the subsequent investigation, the Americans beheaded in the Philippines by fundamental Islamic radicals and these are but a few of the attacks on Americans and their interests. These attacks spanned the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton. Think back and try to remember what actions we took against the terrorist who perpetrated these attacks on us. Saber rattling, launch a few missiles, yeah that will teach them. Hell folks, Clinton pardoned sixteen of the Puerto Rican terrorists.
This repeated lack of action on the part of several administrations on both sides of the political spectrum did nothing but embolden the terrorists. As the years passed the attacks grew bolder, such as the simultaneous attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Nairobi. The attacks grew in scope, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The attacks culminated by integrating bold, simultaneous attacks, that were huge in scope and complexity utilizing weapons that were readily available and already in country... the 9/11 airliner attacks on multiple targets. Based on close to thirty years of American attempts to placate terrorists or impotence such as during the Carter administration’s Iran hostage crisis and the repeated saber rattling of every other administration, it was evident to Al Qaida that the Americans no longer had the stomach for conflicts of any duration nor the will and determination to defend itself.
Until now…
The Bush administration made a conscious decision to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable. They recognized that previous administrations had failed to realize the threat from fundamental Islamic terrorism or had chosen to ignore it and that the consequences had befallen us. Failure to take action would make matters only worse, and worse was hard to imagine especially with the magnitude of the damage to the economy. The question was, who do we go after. The fall of the Soviet Union had helped to largely reduce the number of states who sponsored terrorist groups. After it was established that Al Qaida was responsible for the attacks, going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban was pretty much a given as they had given aid and comfort to Bin Laden and his followers. While many felt that Afghanistan would not be a challenge, given the trouble the Soviets had there, this was probably not going to be the case. Just the terrain was daunting.
This is a good place to remind you of the “you are either with us or against us”
speech put forth by Bush.
Now on to Iraq…
Whether you believe we should be there or not, Iraq provided the opportunity to strike out at a bad guy. Whether Iraq was a threat to us or not, in my estimation, there is no doubt that at some point they had weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that they colluded with Al Qaida in some manner not necessarily on 9/11, there is no doubt that Sadaam Hussein wanted us to believe he had WMDs, and there is no doubt that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions. So Iraq was the target of opportunity when we wanted to show the terrorist world that the U.S. was not going to roll over and get @#$# %&^*&% any more (excuse the expression, but it makes the point exceedingly well).
So while some may think that the death of two thousand soldiers is a tremendous price to make a point, here is the other side of the coin. We have engaged the enemy abroad and not here, and if you recall 9/11 they were here in a big way. Through our efforts abroad, we are depleting both the terrorist’s resources and their personnel. The next point is probably the most important. The terrorists are on the defensive and not the offensive. In short this means that they are reacting to what we are doing there, instead of us reacting to what they are doing here. This is better for us, it makes us safer here and that is the long term goal.
These actions by President Bush will be his historical legacy. He saved the economy and in reality the country and he kept the fight against terrorists in their backyard and not ours. Will terrorism be vanquished, no, it will never be completely gone, but we are safer because of this administration’s refusal to ignore the threat that has plagued us for decades, as did his predecessors.
Remember where you read it first
BT
The second accomplishment can only be viewed from a historical perspective.
It will be debated and disagreed upon by many, especially the peace at all costs element. It will eventually become apparent that Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq broke a chain of events targeting Americans and American interests that had been taking place for over a generation. There are other benefits to these actions that can be lauded now, such as the removal of a despot, the advancement of women’s rights in these societies, the free elections, and the reaction of such states as Libya renouncing terrorism and opening up to allow for inspections of their weapons capabilities. This action by Libya is but a nuance of what has happened within the transnational terrorist communities as a result of the U.S. military involvement.
The U.S. had developed the reputation as being nothing but saber rattlers in reaction to attacks upon Americans and their interests here and abroad. Going back to the seventies with the attacks on our soil by Puerto Rican radicals, the multitude of attacks in the eighties by fundamental Islamic radicals, the nineties attacks on our embassies, the World Trade Center, by fundamental Islamic radicals and even the Oklahoma attack and the subsequent investigation, the Americans beheaded in the Philippines by fundamental Islamic radicals and these are but a few of the attacks on Americans and their interests. These attacks spanned the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton. Think back and try to remember what actions we took against the terrorist who perpetrated these attacks on us. Saber rattling, launch a few missiles, yeah that will teach them. Hell folks, Clinton pardoned sixteen of the Puerto Rican terrorists.
This repeated lack of action on the part of several administrations on both sides of the political spectrum did nothing but embolden the terrorists. As the years passed the attacks grew bolder, such as the simultaneous attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Nairobi. The attacks grew in scope, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The attacks culminated by integrating bold, simultaneous attacks, that were huge in scope and complexity utilizing weapons that were readily available and already in country... the 9/11 airliner attacks on multiple targets. Based on close to thirty years of American attempts to placate terrorists or impotence such as during the Carter administration’s Iran hostage crisis and the repeated saber rattling of every other administration, it was evident to Al Qaida that the Americans no longer had the stomach for conflicts of any duration nor the will and determination to defend itself.
Until now…
The Bush administration made a conscious decision to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable. They recognized that previous administrations had failed to realize the threat from fundamental Islamic terrorism or had chosen to ignore it and that the consequences had befallen us. Failure to take action would make matters only worse, and worse was hard to imagine especially with the magnitude of the damage to the economy. The question was, who do we go after. The fall of the Soviet Union had helped to largely reduce the number of states who sponsored terrorist groups. After it was established that Al Qaida was responsible for the attacks, going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban was pretty much a given as they had given aid and comfort to Bin Laden and his followers. While many felt that Afghanistan would not be a challenge, given the trouble the Soviets had there, this was probably not going to be the case. Just the terrain was daunting.
This is a good place to remind you of the “you are either with us or against us”
speech put forth by Bush.
Now on to Iraq…
Whether you believe we should be there or not, Iraq provided the opportunity to strike out at a bad guy. Whether Iraq was a threat to us or not, in my estimation, there is no doubt that at some point they had weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that they colluded with Al Qaida in some manner not necessarily on 9/11, there is no doubt that Sadaam Hussein wanted us to believe he had WMDs, and there is no doubt that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions. So Iraq was the target of opportunity when we wanted to show the terrorist world that the U.S. was not going to roll over and get @#$# %&^*&% any more (excuse the expression, but it makes the point exceedingly well).
So while some may think that the death of two thousand soldiers is a tremendous price to make a point, here is the other side of the coin. We have engaged the enemy abroad and not here, and if you recall 9/11 they were here in a big way. Through our efforts abroad, we are depleting both the terrorist’s resources and their personnel. The next point is probably the most important. The terrorists are on the defensive and not the offensive. In short this means that they are reacting to what we are doing there, instead of us reacting to what they are doing here. This is better for us, it makes us safer here and that is the long term goal.
These actions by President Bush will be his historical legacy. He saved the economy and in reality the country and he kept the fight against terrorists in their backyard and not ours. Will terrorism be vanquished, no, it will never be completely gone, but we are safer because of this administration’s refusal to ignore the threat that has plagued us for decades, as did his predecessors.
Remember where you read it first
BT
posted by Border Train at 5:47 PM
