By Fareed Zakaria:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731/page/1

Zakaria is a guy I respect a great deal. Currently working on his book The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, a great read FTR. IMO he's a straight shooter that really gets to the root of each issue he tackles. This one is no different.

This article summarizes the evolution of Bush's policies since 2000. You can argue he's paying Bush backhanded insults instead of applauding the appropriate changes in policy his administration has made in recent years. I agree to an extent. I think Zakaria is at least trying to show that Bush deserves some credit for making the changes that were needed, even if he doesn't admit it publicly.

As some pundits have said over and over again - we can't got back into the past and reverse course. We can however change what we're doing now. It's fair to say that was Bush has done RECENTLY has been far more effective than what has been done in the PAST.

And yes, he does deserve some credit for that...

Quote :

"A broad shift in America's approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush's basic conception of a "global War on Terror," to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed."

Quote :

"...it is overwhelmingly clear that the administration made a series of massive blunders in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. It went in with too few troops, dismantled Iraq's Army, bureaucracy and state-owned factories, arrested tens of thousands of Iraqis, mistreated and tortured some of them, and used overwhelming military force against all perceived threats. The outcome? Chaos; an angry, dispossessed and armed Sunni community; a sullen and restless Shiite population; an insurgency; a jihadist terrorist movement, and spreading sectarian violence. In addition, foreign forces were destabilizing the country because both the invasion and the occupation were undertaken without first gaining support from neighboring Arab states or winning international legitimacy. The result was a perfect storm in international affairs, a failure that kept getting worse... It took a long time, but the turnaround in our policy in Iraq has been significant. The United States has made broad overtures to the Sunni community, and now actively supports Sunni fighters it had once jailed. We've concentrated on stabilizing Shiite neighborhoods, helping to free them from dependence on militias. We have abandoned dreams of a pure, free market, instead trying to jump-start Iraq's state-owned enterprises in order to create jobs. And we've even been pursuing a more regional approach, trying to get neighboring countries to open embassies in Baghdad and commit to help stabilize Iraq."

Quote :

"On Afghanistan, there is a more compelling case to be made that the administration mishandled the most important front in the War on Terror. The central critique that Barack Obama makes—that American attention, energy, troops and resources were wrongly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq—is devastating and hard to dispute. But it's a criticism of Bush policy in 2003. The policy that the administration is currently pursuing is less vulnerable to easy attacks. ...the administration has ramped up spending in the region considerably. Whereas in 2003 it spent $737 million on reconstruction and equipping the Afghan Army, by 2007 it was spending $10 billion."

Quote :

"On North Korea, the administration's reversal has been near total. Within months of entering the Oval Office, Bush publicly repudiated his secretary of State, Colin Powell, for even suggesting that the administration would continue Bill Clinton's efforts to negotiate with Kim Jong Il. But since July 2005, Bush has pursued a very similar approach, in fact an even more multilateral one than Clinton's—four additional parties are now at the table. Bringing in the Chinese has been crucial because they are the only ones who have any real leverage with Pyongyang. Bush began by describing North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil. Today he is considering taking the country off the terror list and has offered economic aid to its regime."

Quote :

"An obsession with terrorism has also made the administration devote too little time and energy to the defining feature of the new world order —"the rise of the rest," by which I mean the growth in economic and political power of countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil and a series of regionally prominent nations like South Africa, Nigeria, Mexico and Kazakhstan. In some cases its policy positions are divided and incoherent, as in the case of Russia. But in several crucial instances, they've pursued extremely sensible strategies."

Quote :

"...the administration's China policy has moved toward recognizing the centrality of the relationship. If China can be brought into the existing world order—in some fashion and to some extent—that will greatly improve the prospects for future peace and stability. Bush, despite his grand rhetoric about spreading democracy around the world, has been practical in his relations with the Chinese regime."

Quote :

"Of course, the administration recognizes that the rise of China upsets the strategic balance in Asia. That's led Washington to deepen the strategic relationship with Japan and to develop a new one with India. In the latter case, Bush deserves credit for having transformed the relationship. While Indo-U.S. ties were warm under Bill Clinton, they were always limited by the controversy over India's nuclear program. The Clintonites refused to legitimize India's nuclear program, but for Indians their nukes were absolutely vital. Bush broke the deadlock by accepting, in large measure, that India would have to be treated as an exception and be brought into the nuclear nonproliferation regime as a nuclear power, not a renegade. Now India and America are developing a strategic relationship at many levels of government, which will stand both countries in good stead no matter what the future balance of power in Asia looks like. In an essay in Foreign Affairs, political scientist Daniel Drezner points out that the administration has sought to give China, India and Brazil more weight in international institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G8 and other such bodies. Timothy Adams, the undersecretary of Treasury, told The New York Times in August 2006 that "by re-engineering the IMF and giving China a bigger voice, China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution's mission.""

And lastly...

Quote :

" There was a U.S. president who came into office convinced that everything his predecessor had done was feckless, stupid, ill-informed and venal. He rejected and tried to reverse everything that he could, almost as an article of faith. Before he had even examined the policies carefully, he knew that they had to be changed. The base of his party was delighted by his clarity and fighting spirit. That president, of course, was George W. Bush. His decision to blindly repudiate anything associated with Bill Clinton is what got us into this mess in the first place. Let's hope that the next president, no matter how much he despises Bush, will take a careful look at his administration's policies, America's interests, and the world beyond and do the right thing for the country and its future."

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 6:26 PM. Reason : p]

8/20/2008 6:23:19 PM

A couple of things:

1. You could have put this in my Bush legacy thread--are you boycotting it?

2. You realize that though Zakaria is regarded as a moderate by some, he tends toward the left on a number of issues, right?

8/20/2008 11:31:39 PM

Fair enough. Not like anyone was responding to this as its own thread anyway.

Lock plz

8/20/2008 11:56:35 PM

^

Well, it was a good OP.

8/21/2008 12:00:00 AM

Quote :

"2. You realize that though Zakaria is regarded as a moderate by some, he tends toward the left on a number of issues, right?"

AHA, I love the way people have to be mostly conservative to call themselves a moderate in your book.

8/21/2008 1:50:15 AM

^Yep.

When you get as far out into right field as Hooksaw is, everybody in the media has bias. You lose your perspective when you are that radical.

When people complain about media bias, it's a good sign that they are fucking nutballs. It doesn't matter if it's Jesse Jackson complaining about blacks being unfairly portrayed in movies, or the blowhards on this board complaing about MSNBC. It's all bullshit.

8/21/2008 1:58:58 AM

^ Dude, stop talking like you know me--you don't know shit about me. One more fucking time: I'm not a Republican and I have never voted a straight-party ticket in about twenty years of voting.

If I were actually as "radical" as you claim, why would I vote for Democrats in every election cycle? And why wouldn't I just register as a Republican--do you think it's so I can claim neutrality here to TSB idiots like you? LOL! FTR, I was an unaffiliated voter (1) before TWW was created and (2) before it became hip to be one.

Most of what I post here is simply to balance what I have perceived over the years as an imbalanced left-wing tilt in TSB. Yes, I often post things in a humorous or even inflammatory manner--but I truly do not do it to create a trolling scenario.

You can believe what I'm telling you now or not--I don't really give a flying fuck--but it's the truth. Undoubtedly, you will continue to be happy peddling your pack of lies about me.

PS: Anybody who claims that the MSM doesn't tilt left is a fucking buffoon. And that person should never be taken seriously.

[Edited on August 21, 2008 at 2:22 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2008 2:18:04 AM

The MSM does not tilt left.

8/21/2008 2:08:14 PM

Shortest thread ever.

8/21/2008 3:48:56 PM

8/21/2008 3:52:12 PM

8/21/2008 4:26:34 PM

Bush seemed to care more about UBL than getting fat girls to blow him

8/21/2008 4:34:47 PM