The ultimate legacy of Bush's "big bang" strategy

OP-ED: Why I Have New Hope for The Mideast, By Robin Wright, Washington Post, March 2, 2008; Page B01

The ultimate legacy of Bush's "big bang" strategy, a decision I supported then and have always supported (even when I, at times, disagree vehemently with how the White House had played many of the resulting scenarios--specifically Iran), is that it did change everything in the region. We do a great job on postwar Iraq and we change everything. We do a bad job on postwar Iraq and we change everything. Either way, we change everything.

Yes, there is plenty of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and especially anti-Bush sentiment. But here's the deal, there's no pre-Bush thinking left there. Everyone's been forced to move on in some sense.

That's Bush's real legacy and its huge. I didn't say positive or negative, but huge. Anything that big will be debated forever.

But I'll say again what I've said many times: yes, I would do it all over again knowing what we now know. I say this for two reasons: you don't go to the Middle East and occupy a large nation to impose your identity, but you sure can find one there. The Army and Marines are finding one. The Navy and Air Force lag but not that badly. The Middle East is finding a plethora of new identities. No one's been left unchanged--not even this White House. The next one will be significantly impacted too.

Again, it's a huge legacy.

(Thanks: historyguy99)

Comments

[Louis Heberlein]

As always before, she is Wright on the mark.

Sometimes the right (not Wright) type of failure provides more insights (for all players), and durable progress than an externally orchestrated partial success. The externally orchestrated success will seem neat at first, but players that had little influence (and learning experience) on the effort will then focus on its flaws and try to move back to the old ways.

The only thing I missed from the Wright article was the potential benefit of making Tariq Aziz a player again. He probably understood Wright type thinking more than anyone else in Iraq's leadership establishment.

[Wiredman]

I do like your thought process and most of your conclusions. We the citizens of the US, not just Bush, have made a huge impact on the Middle East. I say that because WE are the United States and WE have supported our continued deployment of troops in Iraq, even as we don't like the war. (I think we actually support the big bang effort because we are rational people.) I believe that the American people will chose to continue our presents in Iraq, hopefully with less of our treasure spent and blood spilt, but with our eye on victory.

I believe a new president like McCain will be enough for the people in the world, including many in the US, who are suffering from Bush fatigue to take a breath and reassess what we have achieved, what we haven’t and make darn sure we achieve what is best for us and the world. I don’t think Senator Obama would do that, so I’m not in your camp with the election.

I want to be in your camp with Iran, but in the end, the next president will have to use decisive military force to expand the “big bang” into Iran. Since you are smarter then I hope I’m wrong and you are right. But I rely on intuition, as much as intellect, and it tells me there will make war at the last possible moment to protect our future.

[Gilbert Garza]

“Yes, there is plenty of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and especially anti-Bush sentiment. But here's the deal, there's no pre-Bush thinking left there. Everyone's been forced to move on in some sense.”

I agree with Tom that it will be necessary to give Bush policies and administration at least the same kind and level of credit that we might give to the effects of a natural disaster: “everyone’s been forced to move in some sense”, “there’s no pre-natural-disaster thinking left here”. I disagree with Tom if he is saying that this amount of credit will be sufficient as Bush prepares to leave office based on effort expended, on current conditions, on progress made, on bad things that didn’t happen —and this without even trying to project favorable outcomes that will be made possible (some even likely) for administrations that follow based on the particular behaviors of his presidency and administration

[bakum]

Ms. Wright's essay is wonderfully positive but I really fail to see how Mr. Barnet connects all of that with "Bush's Big Bang" doctrine. It would seem to me just from what I've read here that the US invasion had nothing to do with the changes Ms. Wright spoke of. Technology, specifically the proliferation of independent blogs as a source of information, seem to be the major catalyst.

Further, I fail to understand how political destabilization by an outside agitator advances the causes of the democratically minded. I'd love to see some evidence, or at least someone connecting the dots in a logical way, but that hasn't happened yet that I've seen. Mostly I read "serious thinkers" taking neoconservative ideology as a given without any supporting evidence.