Yesterday, I examined George Packer's praise in the New Yorker for George Bush's performance last week, praise that Bush garnered at least in part by attacking conservatives. As I noted, though, Packer capped off his piece by arguing that, notwithstanding his good week, Bush's legacy will be the war in Iraq, and he will thus be remembered as a failure. Packer contended that this would be true regardless of what happens in the Middle East.
Claims about what history will say about a subject are almost always specious -- they dress up one's views with an authority they cannot yet possess. If President Bush and his supporters claim that history will vindicate the Iraq war and his overall efforts to help bring fundamental change for the better to the Middle East, they are stating only that, while things may not be going that well so far, his policies nonetheless are the correct ones because they will produce better results down the road. But we already know Bush believes this; otherwise, presumably, he'd be pursuing other policies. Thus, Bush's appeal to history does not advance the argument. Similarly, when opponents of administration policy say that history will remember the war, and by extension Bush, as a failure, they normally are merely affirming their view that the situation in Iraq cannot be salvaged, and that it will have adverse consequences for the Middle East and for us.
Packer's argument goes further, however. He contends that no matter what happens in the Middle East, Bush's policy will have been wrong. But Packer offers no intelligent argument as to why this is so. Instead he offers this non-sequitur -- history vindicated Harry Truman's anti-communist policies; these policies consisted mostly of establishing "international architecture;" Bush has created no such "architecture;" therefore, history cannot vindicate Bush. Even if Packer's claim about Truman's core contribution were true, his conclusion would not follow. The most Packer can show is that Bush's policies cannot be vindicated in precisely the same way Truman's were.
It's natural for rabid critics of Bush to hope that, no matter how history turns out, his policies will have been discredited. But to elevate that hope into an argument takes the "history will absolve me" game beyond speciousness into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. Wishful thinking is no excuse for the kind of arrogant over-reaching Packer displays here. If Iraq remains a functioning democracy and becomes a fairly stable one, and if other Middle Eastern countries follow suit with the result that they eventually eschew anti-western radicalism and terrorism subsides, then no fair rendition of history will view the Bush administration's Middle East policy unkindly.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. "" Claims about what history will say about a subject are almost always specious ...""
In the rest of the post, the Powerlice tries to prove a negative. Talk about speciousness.
The US government didn't collapse because of Watergate, and still Nixon is remembered as a jerk.
Iraq may still rebound, but Bush2 will still be remembered as a jerk.
Read the Packer article, it actually shows that Nixon displayed some candor, none of this "talking to a high Father" crap.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:14PM on Jun 7th 2007
2. It is absolutely credible that we faced an enemy that everyone believed was dangerous and that preemption was the proper path for our nation. The Dems can lie and backtrack all day long and it wouldn't change the truth.
The issue on the war is that it will take a Republican successor with the temperment of Lincoln and the persistence of William Tecumseh Sherman, to clean up the first act and do what it will take to win a war. It will take someone that is not afraid to win, in order to gain the trust and respect of the people.
The weak liberals running for office now will pee their pants and sit on our couches if they have to make a critical war time decision; more lives will be at stake because of their abivalence and indecision due to the inner conflict between political ideology and the soldiers in the field. Their voting records and the decisions that they have made in political fashion demonstrate their inability to lead as commander-in-chief.
Whichever Republican candidate that takes over will be able to clean up the mess and may be able to rehabilitate president Bush's reputation in so doing.
Cdalealden at 2:00AM on Jun 8th 2007
3. First off, thank you Paul for allowing us access to the original Packer article. I agree with Webster Hubble Telescope - Iraq is not the only glaring failure of the Bush Administration. Its all been said before and seen before by the American people, but he has failed on every front in regard to our economy and the daily lives of the American people.
I have no evidence to believe that the war in Iraq was anything other than an attempt to colonize an oil rich state run by a dictator with a big mouth, but also that same dictator had every reason to fear Muslim extremism and provided a secular buffer to Iran. It we were not attempting a permanent colonization, why are we building the world's largest embassy in Baghdad - almost a monument to permanency. Moreover, why are we still there in the absence of any credible evidence that anything we have done to date has succeeded.
Finally, as an American who does not want OUR country attacked, how is stirring the fury of the entire Muslim world by our occupation, and creating hundreds of thousands, if nor more, actual or would be terrorists protecting us.
Now that Bush has increased the threat 100 fold, the focus should be on the WAY overdue securing of our homeland. You don't do that by cutting border patrol funds and reducing illegal immigration enforcement, as Bush did for years. You do that sealing the borders and ports to the best of our ability.
One thing I will credit Bush for, however, is that even though it seemed to take forever, he has improved our internal intelligence and apparently stopped several potential slaughterhouse terrorist acts in our country - and, in relation to the recent plot and the Sears tower plot, there appears to be no evidence of torture used to prevent the attacks.
Phil at 7:18AM on Jun 8th 2007
4. What a sentence:
"If Iraq remains a functioning democracy and becomes a fairly stable one, and if other Middle Eastern countries follow suit with the result that they eventually eschew anti-western radicalism and terrorism subsides, then no fair rendition of history will view the Bush administration's Middle East policy unkindly."
True enough -- just as it is also true that IF I develop heat vision and the ability to fly, no fair minded person will not call me Superman.
This then is what the Bush Bobbysoxers at Powerline are reduced to in the waning dyas of the Dear Leader -- the "Clap If You Believe in Fairies" strategy made famous by Mary Martin. True, it worked in her case -- but that was in a play, not real life, a realm in which the Blunderer-in-Chief and his followers are increasingly unable to function.
richter at 10:33AM on Jun 8th 2007
5. I love this place it shows the argumentation of Paul opposed to the name calling and wishfull thinking of the lefties. The contrast is stark.
Theop at 9:11AM on Jun 13th 2007
6. "I have no evidence to believe that the war in Iraq was anything other than an attempt to colonize an oil rich state run by a dictator with a big mouth..."
What evidence do you have to support this? Must be that freely elected government. Those Iraqis that risked their lives to do something they had never been able to do before just so we could be their new masters. A big embassy is still an embassy where we house our ambassador to sovereign countries.
The BDS in these comments make Packer look reasonable.
gitarfan at 8:46AM on Jun 10th 2007
7. "he has failed on every front in regard to our economy and the daily lives of the American people." really?and you live on counter-earth from some comic book,right? "One thing I will credit Bush for, however, is that even though it seemed to take forever, he has improved our internal intelligence and apparently stopped several potential slaughterhouse terrorist acts in our country" something many democrats,and their liberal allies(nyt,aclu,etc)have fought every step of the way.and too bad bill clinton never thought of that,after the first al-qaeda attack.or the second...or third,etc.but he did have to protect us from those christian cultisits in waco,texas,and the christian serbs in kosovo...right
js at 6:53PM on Jun 10th 2007