He Never Fails, Even When Does
Posted on January 19th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
As the last 24 hours of the Bush Presidency approach, I suppose it is time to say a few words about the tiresome meme that Bush’s legacy will be that “he kept us safe.” Others have noted how bizarre it is that his defenders have chosen to hold up one of the areas where Mr. Bush oversaw unprecedented, catastrophic failure and determine that security was his crowning achievement. I might also question the claim depending on how one defines “us.” European allies and Westerners abroad were obviously much less secure as a direct result of Mr. Bush’s decisions. The charnel house that Mr. Bush made out of Iraq is omitted from the discussion on the implicit and appalling assumption that the devastation of that country is justified in the minds of many Bush supporters on the dubious grounds that it was done for the sake of American security, despite the great likelihood that the invasion and occupation have created a generation of newly-radicalized enemies who will seek to harm Americans in the future. To the extent that FEMA’s insufficient response to natural disaster revealed the government’s utter lack of preparedness and lack of appropriate leadership up through late 2005, the more appropriate way to describe the approximately four years between 9/11 and Katrina was that we as a nation happened to be fortunate during that period that the behemonth Department of Homeland Security was never called upon to respond to a major terrorist attack.
When supporters begin blithely claiming that the war in Iraq is over and we won, or declare that history will vindicate Mr. Bush, they are naturally not taking into account that this war may very well lead to even more terrible blowback in the years and decades to come. Indeed, the full costs of Mr. Bush’s failures will not be known for many years. In the terrible event that there are more disastrous consequences of Mr. Bush’s policies, will his apologists at that point acknowledge that he was a failure, or will they construct new arguments to claim that he cannot be held responsible for what happened later on? We already know the answer to that.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
22 Responses to “He Never Fails, Even When Does”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
European allies and Westerners abroad were obviously much less secure as a direct result of Mr. Bush’s decisions.
There’s lots of good reasons to disapprove of Mr. Bush, but I don’t see what you’re getting at here. Whatever it is, there’s two obvious things to be kept in mind: 1. Most of our Western European allies have substantial Muslim minorities that need to be politically appeased. 2. They have also abandoned their defense funding responsibilities over a matter of decades.
Somehow I doubt that you intend to have Europe piggyback on our defense establishment indefinitely, but that’s presumably where we’re heading if European defense failures are “really” our problem.
Well said. The “he kept us safe” meme is based upon an incredibly narrow and short-sighted definition of that phrase. Safe from domestic terrorist attacks during his presidency. This is a good thing. However, the ways in which Bush’s policies made people less safe — the economy, fiscal profligacy, domestic crisis management, the torture regime, Iraq, pushing for the elections that brought Hamas to power, etc. — indicate that only the most limited definitions of “us” and “safe” can be used by his supporters to cast his presidency in a positive light.
Koz, I think you’ve missed Daniel’s point. It’s not that they are less safe because of their “defense failures,” but because they are more likely to suffer terrorist attacks and increased disenchantment by their Muslim populations as a result of Bush’s actions. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that. And I couldn’t agree more strongly that the “he kept us safe meme” is absurd, for all the reasons Daniel mentions – not to speak of the fact that the 9/11 attack, the anthrax attacks, and the Katrina failures all occurred on Bush’s watch.
It’s not that they are less safe because of their “defense failures,†but because they are more likely to suffer terrorist attacks and increased disenchantment by their Muslim populations as a result of Bush’s actions. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that.
Well I do, for reasons that seem obvious, to me at least. In those countries you have poorly assimilated Muslim minorities where the demographic facts of life are such that the young Muslims can credibly believe that they constitute the “real” majorities. These are also sclerotic welfare-state economies, and places where the native elites lack either the will or the understanding to attempt to constitute the culture in some other way. Clearly these things are not Mr. Bush’s fault and in those terms Mr. Bush can be credibly viewed to some extent as beacon of resistance to those things here in America.
Koz, I’m not sure any of that has anything to do with Daniel’s point that Bush’s policies have further radicalized Muslim populations around the world and in Europe proper, whatever their condition. But I guess we’ll leave it there.
When Bush apologists claim he has “protected our freedom,” they blithely ignore the numerous terrorist attacks that have occurred outside our borders, while taking responsibility for those supposedly thwarted in order to justify “tools” that eviscerate said freedom.
“These are also sclerotic welfare-state economies, and places where the native elites lack either the will or the understanding to attempt to constitute the culture in some other way.”
I assume you refer to Europe, whose economy overall at least rivals ours; which maintains less debt, lower trade deficits, superior educational and literacy standards, superior health outcomes, and more broadly based prosperity than ours? Do I read this as regret that their white men refuse to take up their burden, and control the darkies? Or are wealthy and poor the new elites and culture, in need of proper “constitution?” Or is it that their politicians, despite the Bush administration example, have failed to flout their laws and constitutions to control and “protect” their populations? And yet, despite domestic terrorist threats exceeding ours since the days of Baader Meinhoff and the Red Brigades, and despite the fact that foreign terrorists either know where Europe is or somehow followed some European home, no European administration has suffered an attack within an order of magnitude of that the U.S. suffered during the reign of Bush the great defender.
Finally, it is exceptional naivete to apparently believe that the safety of a country cannot be jeopardized by the foolish and inflammatory actions of another; at least, conservatives seemed to believe differently during the Cold War.
I assume you refer to Europe, whose economy overall at least rivals ours; which maintains less debt, lower trade deficits, superior educational and literacy standards, superior health outcomes, and more broadly based prosperity than ours?
I wish this were supposed to be a joke, but I fear it’s not. Because it’s not only (almost) entirely wrong, but known to be wrong by anybody whose paying an iota of attention.
Our GDP/capita is higher, our assets are greater, our debt is lower, unemployment is lower. Notice that the “flight to quality” response to the economic crisis has been toward dollar-denominated assets and away from euros and other European currencies. And the economic deprivations of Europe are going to fall hardest on the Muslims there, because they never really got assimilated into those economies in the first place, like I mentioned before.
All of these things (and many others) cause substanstial social disharmony in Western Europe, and none of it has anything to do with W.
“Our GDP/capita is higher”
According to the CIA factbook, the US comes in at number 12 for 2007. It will certainly be lower for 2008. Ten European countries are ahead of the US. Presumably, this is really a dig at the French, who come in at 21, right behind Germany at 20. But healthcare in these countries is a much lower percentage of GDP for comparable quality. This may or may not be a meaningful measure across industrialized economies. As it stands now, GDP per capita in Europe is about EUR 28,700, or about $37,300 at current exchange rates and the US is about $45,800. But these figures are somewhat dated–they don’t reflect the events of 2008. And they include the recent EU entrants, who tend to drag the average down. If we just look at the EU15, its about EUR 31,330, or about $40, 730. So the US is still higher, but, again, this is only through 2007.
“our assets are greater”
on what basis? Per capita? With the US undergoing the greatest asset writedown seen for decades? Not clear I would want to push this. What’s this based on? I know of no economic data to support this claim.
“our debt is lower”
Factually questionable, or at least indeterminate, on just about every measure. Government debt for the US in November 2008 was about $37,300 per capita, with total debt equalling about 65% of GDP–and several European countries are higher than this, but a number are lower, again according to the CIA factbook. In fact, according to Eurostat, debt per capita in the European Union as a whole is a bit lower, at 58%. However, if you add household debt to this average, the US number shoots up dramatically, probably more than most European countries, mainly because European saving rates are robustly higher than those in the US. It’s actually very difficult to determine this, because it’s hard to find current data for household debt. Anecdotally, it’s worth noting that while France has credit cards, they’re actually debit cards–you need the money in the bank before you can put the charge on the card.
“unemployment is lower”
says who? Seasonally-adjusted unemployment in the EU in November was 7.2%, and this has been coming down the past few years; in the US it was 7.2% in December, and it’s been moving up sharply the past several months.
“flight to quality”
at close to zero interest rates, does anyone really believe the dollar will not weaken from current levels relative to other currencies? This is a blip. See the comments on asset devaluation above.
You may or may not be correct in your observations about the assimilation of minorities in Europe, but your economic claims are unfounded in most cases.
I’m probably going to write about this more than I want. First of all, it’s been a fact of European economies in general that they’ve had large structural unemployment for a couple of decades now. Whereas the US is projected to get to 9-10-11% unemployment over the next couple of years (barring a recovery, that is) that’s been a fact of life of the major European economies for a while now (ie, before the crisis), and of course the new EU states are substantially worse than that.
Again, our GDP is higher except for just a couple of countries which aren’t representative of very much, especially as an “alternative” to the US. Ie, whereas we could hypothetically “choose” to be Europe, we can’t choose to be Norway or Lichtenstein.
The US dollar in theory ought to weaken but it’s not clear what ought to get stronger. In particular, the Euro is likely to be very weak because propensity of sovereign debt default looks a lot more imminent there than it does here. Which ties into the flight to quality and debt loads.
The fact is, the combination of American assets, GDP/capita (and a long tradition of property rights and the rule of law and such) make US denominated debt a much better proposition. Look it up. Greece and Spain are supposed to default, like next week or something. There’s talk that the UK is going to need a loan from the IMF.
Because we have had a practical sort of republicanism in place in America over the past thirty years or so, whereas Europe is essentially ruled by a nomenklatura, we retain the ability to shape our own destiny much more than Europe does. Many Europeans resent this very much, and people like President Bush end up as the scapegoat.
Well, this is tedious, and probably hopeless, but let’s give it one last try. These are imperfect measures at best. If you’re comparing the GDP per capita of the US and, say, Haiti, they’re meaningful. If you’re comparing across industrial economies, it’s risky, and usually not particularly meaningful. Especially since the US GDP contains a higher level of externalities than most European countries, and the major differences in the health care systems and social services make these comparisons a bit precarious. Given the higher dependence on consumer spending in the US than in Europe, and the (almost certainly, as far as anyone can tell) higher levels of household debt in the US, one could turn this around into an argument for US profligacy relative to everyone else. Actually, the same thing with unemployment–Europe has had a large structural unemployment problem for a while. Guess what? So has the US. The US figures just don’t include those who have given up searching for work, and the long-term unemployed. Add a couple of points for that and you’re closer than you are clearly prepared to admit. And as far as sovereign debt defaults, you clearly believe what you read too much. Greece has been a basket case for some time, but Spain? Sorry, not gonna happen. Italy is a lot more likely to default than Spain, but again, Italy is a bit of a special case. Somehow, they keep muddling along. As far as US assets go, as I mentioned, these are coming down in value, and this is a process that will take a number of years. Are policy-makers prepared for a 30% drop in the value of US assets? Is the US public? And what do you suppose needs to happen to interest rates during this process? You can believe “the talk” that the UK will need a loan from the IMF all you want–it makes a dramatic talking point, no doubt, but that doesn’t make it any more likely to happen. Sorry to be the one to bring bad tidings, but the economic model that the US has had for the past thirty years (and which the UK has tried its best to emulate) just blew up. Guess what’s going to replace it? Do you like brie? And as far as the last paragraph goes, what Europeans tend to resent is Bush’s bullying, adolescent posturing, capriciousness, selfishness, and ideological blindness. And the fact that he has tried to force American exceptionalism down everyone’s throat.
I recognize that I’m dealing with a belief system here, so I don’t expect to convince anyone who uses terms such as “nomenklatura.” I’ll shut up now.
You’re right that the economic part of this is getting a little tedious so I’ll be brief and switch over to the cultural points, which I think are more important anyway. About debt, the US and Europe both have very severe debt problems but the severity for Europe is greater and possible adverse consequences more imminent. About unemployment, at the end of the Reagan administration the unemployment rate went down to 4.5% or so, and until a month or so ago I don’t think it’s been above 6.5% or so since. So you can add a couple of points to that and you’re still not within spitting distance of Europe. Finally, you don’t have to rely on GDP to know the US is superior to the industrial economies of Europe if you’re at all familiar with the typical job paths and career prospects of young educated people in both places.
And as far as the last paragraph goes, what Europeans tend to resent is Bush’s bullying, adolescent posturing, capriciousness, selfishness, and ideological blindness. And the fact that he has tried to force American exceptionalism down everyone’s throat.
I recognize that I’m dealing with a belief system here, so I don’t expect to convince anyone who uses terms such as “nomenklatura.†I’ll shut up now.
This is getting closer the the original point anyway. I agree with you at least as far as their perceived resentments against Bush. But the idea that Bush’s actions have made Europe less secure strikes me as being more or less ridiculous.
It’s European cultural developments over the last thirty years or so that created American exceptionalism. It’s just the reality of 9/11 that forced everybody to confront it.
Finally, nomenklatura is a strong word, and I should have applied some more context. Essentially, the Euro political class have jerry-rigged the system so that any meaningful popular control over welfare, crime, immigration, whatever is verboten. The US, as much as paleocons like to complain about it, hasn’t done this. As a result, it’s the American people, not just the political class, who have confronted a lot of the big-ticket issues in the world, and therefore America as a nation has a great deal more strength to adapt than the industrial democracies of Europe.
Koz–we just disagree. I’ve lived in Europe (well, the UK, but I consider that Europe) for eleven years now, and I just don’t recognize the stereotypes–myths, actually–that you’re presenting. But I don’t expect to persuade you otherwise, so I won’t bother to try. We could spend lots of time going around on the measures the US has taken the last fifty years to keep Europe from developing any military strength, or any political unity. To what effect?
On the original point, though–Larison is right. European resentment of Bush has nothing to do with the list you offer. There is a strong belief here–not just here, actually, but everywhere in the world– that Bush, through what the Financial Times yesterday referred to as a reign of error, has made the world a more–not less–dangerous place, and that the blowback is more likely to be in Europe, not the US. We’ve already seen it, in fact–here in London (where I take the underground every day), and in Spain. And there is the persistent fear that it will continue unless there is a major change in Washington in its mideast policies. But I suspect we’ll disagree on this as well.
On the original point, though–Larison is right.
Obviously, Daniel can jump in here if he likes but the first thing to note is that, especially as to the part I commented on, Daniel doesn’t have a line of argument as much as some random anti-Bush vitriol. (Certainly Daniel would not take seriously the proposition that the US President is responsible for West European security except for rhetorical purposes such as this.) You “agree” with Daniel because you both share visceral antipathy to Bush.
And let me repeat and clarify, I absolutely agree with you about Europeans’ resentment of Bush. Where we disagree is that GWB is that this resentment has anything to do with European security, as opposed to an expression of envy writ large. Of course, nobody is jealous of GWB personally, but the United States is clearly relevant on the world stage in ways that the UK, France or Germany isn’t.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article541957.ece
For example, I was in Poland for a decent part of 2006, and I remember very vividly the animosity and bitterness of the UK press regarding the Israeli-Lebanese War and I’m sure it’s no different now with the Hamas thing. Clearly the esteem of the UK has zero stature in Israel’s mindset whereas the esteem of the United States is crucially important. For a people raised on the cultural legacy of Kipling, Churchill, Queen Victoria or whoever thats a very bitter pill to swallow. Nonetheless, it’s clearly not GWB’s problem or his fault.
It seems to me that you’re talking about two different types of security. Koz is talking “national security” and wufnik is talking “personal security.” While Bush’s actions vis-Ã -vis
the Muslim world arguably may not have affected the national security of countries in the EU, I don’t see how it can be denied his actions have furnished a rallying point for Islamic terrorist groups and have radicalized many previously non-political Middle Easterners. This has resulted in a decline in the personal security of any citizen of a nation that could be considered an ally of the US, as the likelihood of a terrorist attack is increased.
Koz– i said I’d shut up, and this time I mean it, but I just have to say that after reading your last response, I think we really do live on different planets. The notion that Europeans hate Bush because of envy of US influence in the world is, well, I don’t know, just plain silly. It’s not that the US has influence that others envy–it’s that the US, more often than not, especially under Bush, used that influence incredibly stupidly, selfishly, and possibly self-destructively, with little concern for the implications of its actions on the wider stage. And not just Europeans–you find this in India and China, and elsewhere. People hate Bush because he represented the worst that America has to offer the world, and people really do love America (and Americans)–they just found Bush to be a betrayal of their ideals about America. Your example of the UK press being upset with America during the Israel/Lebanon war is a case in point–to say that the concern was the fact the UK has no stature in Israel misses the point completely. It’s that the US then, and even during the past month, was not only not using its influence wisely, but also was enabling havoc in an already unstable situation, and making it considerably worse. And this is Bush’s fault–he set the tone for the past eight years. Me, I’m looking forward to having a grown-up as president.
I disagree with Larison’s and wufnik’s assumption that it is obvious that Bush’s policies, i.e, the Iraq War, have made Europe and Westerners abroad less safe.
Before 9/11 al Qaeda and other militant Islamists were killing Westerners throughout the world. Europeans were routinely kidnapped and sometimes killed while traveling in the Yemeni hinterland. German tourists were butchered while touring ancient sites in Egypt because they were Western. 9/11 happened before the invasion Iraq. The first attempt to knock down the World Trade Towers happened in 1993. Theo van Gogh was murdered not because of George W. Bush or the Iraq War, but because his art defecated on Islam.
To say that if Bush had only not invaded Iraq or not adopted an aggressive security policy in light of 9/11 fails to speak to the immense hatred many Muslims and Islamists have for the West and its culture. I’ve lived in Europe and I have even lived in a predominantly Muslim immigrant part of town. There in fact Muslims who would kill Westerners simply for being Westerners. Bombs were placed on trains in Germany even though Germany didn’t participate in the invasion or occupation of Iraq? Why is that? Only Germany’s participation in Afghanistan you think? Or to kill Germans for the sake of killing Germans and trying to gain cultural concessions from terrorist acts?
It’s infantile and unfair to think that Bush alone has somehow made it more dangerous for Westerners in Europe or abroad, because it was simply dangerous well before Bush ever was in office, and even before 9/11 happened. How much more pissed off could Islamists get than they were on 9/11?
It seems to me that you’re talking about two different types of security. Koz is talking “national security†and wufnik is talking “personal security.â€
I don’t know if wuf means this or not but it doesn’t help his argument either way. Everybody paying attention knows that US major cities are safer than European ones (to say nothing about the countryside). It wasn’t always that way of course, but we went through things like Giuliani in NYC and the broken windows theory, etc. which would be essentially out of bounds in Europe.
Your example of the UK press being upset with America during the Israel/Lebanon war is a case in point–to say that the concern was the fact the UK has no stature in Israel misses the point completely.
Not quite.
First of all, during the Lebanese War (and the present) the lion’s share the UK press wrath was directed at _Israel_ not America. In fact it was something of a respite from Iraq where UK public opinion _does_ blame America. Second place (in the Lebanese war) was the UK itself for obviously being unable to do anything and third was the US.
Forgive me for putting it this way, but one of guidelines in Steven Covey’s book is that you have to have some balance between what he calls a person’s Circle of Influence versus his Circle of Concern. The UK is out of balance because it wants to concern itself with things that it decreasing influence over.
The dirty little secret is that the UK thought it could get around this by acquiescing to multiculturalism, but that didn’t work. That was the whole point behind Cool Britannia and all the rest of it. It’s only the square Churchill/Kipling types who had to care about projecting power and all the rest of it. Now that they’ve been renounced, we find that the UK public still (desperately) wants to project power, they’re just humiliated because they lack the means to do it.
“Everybody paying attention knows that US major cities are safer than European ones….”
This would be based on what data?
“…the UK thought it could get around this by acquiescing to multiculturalism, but that didn’t work.”
huh? by what criteria? And I’m just taking a random guess, but you don’t live here, do you?
This is the problem with this discussion, and why it’s pointless–it’s long on stereotypes and myths and blather, but short on facts.
This would be based on what data?
Do you really need data to know that the part of London north of the Thames is wealthier than south of the Thames? Or that
QPR supporters have better manners than Milwall’s?
If you really have to have data, I’m sure there’s ways to create proxies or look it up. But the point being is they are the data.
No, I don’t live in London now, but yes I used to (actually alternating between London and Amsterdam) recently enough.