Opinion
Fresh chance for Bush
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- Bill could reduce state ethical lapses (November 10, 2005)
- When politics need playing (April 26, 2005)
- Wal-Mart Week inspires legislators (November 17, 2005)
- War images neccessitate full disclosure (May 2, 2005)
- New face needed in 2008 for Democrats (December 9, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Last week, while the Baker Commission finalized its recommendations, President Bush assured Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Malaki that he was not looking for a "graceful exit" from Iraq. While this assertion is consistent with Bush's style, one has to wonder if the commission's report will force him to go back on his word.
Throughout the Bush presidency, America and the world have watched White House officials conduct their domestic and international affairs in a way that could hardly be called graceful. Emboldened by the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush's "with us or against us" style dominated his first term. He publicly denounced the "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union address. He appointed a gruff, no-nonsense John Bolton to the U.N. ambassadorship. He trampled international reservation and invaded Iraq. More recently, he refused conversation with North Korea and Iran, preferring to glare across the globe rather than negotiate across a table.
This political style seemed appropriate at first. In fact, it had received the subtle endorsement of another influential commission — the 9/11 Commission — whose report condoned more thorough and aggressive action on the part of the U.S. government to thwart terror. It recommended strengthening defense, broadening executive control and centralizing command — all of which have come to characterize the current administration's style. So, for the past half decade, America has watched as Bush and his gang stomped heavily and brandished big sticks.
The problem is that this style of cowboy politics seems to have failed — miserably. Bolton has been fired. Iran and North Korea are bolder and better armed today than they've ever been, and Iraq has fallen to pieces. Despite his most hardheaded efforts, Bush has failed to make the United States stronger and safer. With an oppositional Congress in waiting, and a disillusioned public growing louder, Bush turned once again to a commission for guidance. This time, however, its findings were far from complementary to Bush's strong-arm style.
The Baker Commission's report is instead a study in moderation and compromise. It recommends gradually scaling back the number of troops in Iraq. It encourages the administration to abandon ultimatums and instead subtly signal that the American presence will not continue indefinitely. The report said it is time for the United States to slowly transfer power and responsibility to the Iraqi government. It also advocated increased use of diplomatic solutions — including engaging Syria and Iran in cooperation and compromise. Finally, the commission recommended that the U.N. Security Council assume a predominant role in dealing with Middle East conflicts.
In short, the commission recommends softening, scaling back and relinquishing control. It seems to have authored in weeks what Democrats could not pull together in months — a comprehensive plan to ease out of Iraq. Gracefully.
It will be difficult for Bush to ignore these recommendations and even harder to defy them. Despite what Bush may have told al-Malaki last week, the commission's bi-partisan status and high-profile members command respect and deference. It is hard to imagine that the administration will find a way to discount recommendations from a group that consists of former secretaries of state and defense, a Supreme Court justice, a retired chief of staff and several distinguished Congressmen.
So while Bush may have sworn to stay the course and avoid "graceful exits," the release of the commission's report may be an impetus for significant changes in policy and direction, and for a new leadership style.
Bush has not been graceful in the past. Thankfully, the commission has presented him with the opportunity to make over his style and even salvage his legacy. Should he act wisely and adopt the commission's recommendations, Bush can show that at the right moment, even the cowboy from Texas can demonstrate grace under fire.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Solid opinion piece
1) In all of Bush’s life, has he ever done the “right thing.” Or, did he run every business/ country into the ground before getting bailed out by his father?
2) Where was the Baker/Hamilton group 2 or 3 years ago? We’re too quick to give these political hacks credit for their tardiness.
3) Make this imperial quest official: Make Iraq our 51st state. I’d feel more comfortable about leaving our troops “at home” then.
You are headed for a job with the MSM no doubt. I can tell by the huge number of deceptions and the massive bias in your article.
The situation reminds me of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae in which King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. Facing insurmountable odds, their valor and sacrifice inspire all of Greece to unite against their Persian enemy, drawing a line in the sand for democracy.
I suppose after the battle the Greek should have just surrendered. The we wouldn’t have the problems we do now. We wouldn’t have anything.
Pity our politicians can’t understand this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWp4W-PBLkw
Bias in an opinion piece, THE HORROR!
I’m envious of the dreamworld you inhabit! Keep on hallucinating!
Yep. Let Baker and his tired coterie of has-beens and hacks, along with their liberal cheering section rah-rah-sis-boombah-ing us right into the Dar al-Harb, go hang. If Bush truly wants victory, this was ever the only way to get it.
And I'm afraid that this country — not just this country, but the entire West — simply is no longer up to the task. We don't seem to have the stomach for fighting them either there OR here.
No, we'll continue along snatching desperately at whatever crumbs the Islamofascists toss our way, pointing to each soothingly hollow pronouncement their "moderate Muslim" front men make as if they meant a single word of any of it, and telling ourselves everything is fine, really — as they slowly set up a separate law for themselves in our own municipalities, and the Muslim zealots' ghettos expand and replicate like a virus, and the ME goes right on bleeding itself.
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. — Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1940
I’d rather put Saddam back in power. He’ll clean up the Iran mess for us.
We could even let him take Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia too) so he’d have the bucks to take on the Iranians.
Bush the first should never have pushed him out Kuwait to begin with. It was this that was the seminal cause of 9-11. OBL was mad at the USA because we put troops in Saudi Arabia, before that he was our buddy.
I’m assuming the United States would be the invading Persians in 9:47am’s reference to the Battle of Thermopylae. Not a very flatrering portrayal of our role in Iraq.
But, a small group of Iraqis fighting an invasion by the largest military in the world? Yeah, I guess I can see the parallel to Thermopylae. I just don’t see how that supports the rest of your comment.
Maybe you should think this one through a little more.
to 3:56
Nope, the USA was outnumbered going into Iraq.
Besides, the Persians may be coming back (with nukes this time).
And I don’t think anybody is stupid enough to claim that those fighting the USA in Iraq are on the side of democracy, hell, many of them aren’t even from Iraq.
Saying that Bush is the worst president ever isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. Facts aren’t biased.
Bush can’t be the worst president ever.
Carter was the worst president ever.
Carter is also the worst ex-president ever.
6:38 might be the worst commenter ever.
Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker’s “Support Group,” relax, it’s a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions — return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it’s in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That’s what Hollywood would call “high concept.”
Think how different the Middle East would be if Mr. Peanut had not stabbed the Shah of Iran in the back and facilitated the rise of the Ayatollahs and their control of Iran.