10 reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by atleast_a_bronze, Jan 20, 2010.

  1. atleast_a_bronze

    atleast_a_bronze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    2
    A nice read:

    10 reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama

    By Nile Gardiner


    When it took office a year ago, the Obama administration boasted of a new strategy of “smart power”, designed to restore America’s “standing” in the world. In essence this new approach to foreign policy was designed to distance the new US government in every way possible from the Bush administration, supposedly hated in every corner of the earth, from Berlin to Buenos Aires.

    Hence, the hallmarks of Obama’s foreign policy have been the naive engagement of an array of odious dictatorial regimes, grovelling apologies before foreign audiences, lamb-like timidity in the face of intimidation, the ending of the War on Terror, and the trashing of traditional alliances. But has this liberal foreign affairs revolution succeeded in advancing American interests and security across the globe? Hardly. Under Obama’s leadership the United States now appears significantly weaker and far more vulnerable, faced with an array of deadly threats that grow more menacing by the day.

    When President Bush was in power he may not have been hugely popular abroad, but the United States was widely feared on the world stage, her enemies were hunted to the ends of the earth, and her real allies were treated with respect. As Barack Obama is discovering to his cost, the world stage is not an extension of the set of American Idol, and global leadership is not about winning popularity contests. The doctrine of “smart power” looks increasingly like an empty shell, a naive approach that has reaped no dividends and threatens to usher in an era of American decline, unless it is reversed.

    I’ve outlined below ten areas where George W. Bush’s international leadership was considerably smarter than that of his successor. As I noted in an article at the end of the Bush presidency, ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. President Bush, like Ronald Reagan, understood that American global leadership rests heavily upon the projection of hard power as well as diplomacy, and the United States can only lead effectively if it is willing to aggressively confront its enemies and defeat them.

    1. Bush never apologised for his country

    Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”. In contrast, George W. Bush’s speeches before international audiences were filled with pride for America’s history and achievements, with an uncompromising belief in the greatness of his country. The Obama approach has simply projected weakness rather than strength, and his diatribes against the previous administration’s counter-terror strategy has provided ample ammunition for those who believe the United States lacks the stomach for the fight ahead.

    2. Bush identified and confronted evil


    There was something very refreshing in George W. Bush’s Reaganesque interpretation of the world in terms of good and evil. In contrast, Barack Obama has viewed the globe largely in shades of grey, with a reluctance to describe who exactly America’s enemies are, from North Korea and Iran to Islamist terrorists. I applauded Bush when he delivered his infamous Axis of Evil address because he correctly identified the nature and scale of the threat the West is facing from an array of rogue regimes, who in some cases also act as large-scale sponsors of international terrorism. President Obama’s disastrous decision to engage Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran has simply bought the regime in Tehran valuable time to advance its nuclear and ballistic weapons programme, as well as its ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

    3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda


    The spread of freedom and liberty was always a centerpiece of the Bush agenda. His critics derided this approach as unrealistic, or as a grandiose dream. But few would argue today that the people of Iraq were better off living under a monstrous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. In marked contrast, Barack Obama rarely mentions the word freedom, and the issue of human rights is far down his list of priorities. He has remained largely silent in the face of extreme brutality by the Iranian regime, has extended the hand of friendship to genocidal killers in Sudan and has turned a blind eye to repression in places like Burma. There is a name for this kind of strategy – appeasement – and it only serves to weaken America’s standing in the world and strengthen the brutal fist of its enemies.

    4. Bush defended national sovereignty

    One of the biggest shifts in US foreign policy under the Obama administration has been its willingness to undermine national sovereignty, and its desire to give more power to supranational institutions such as the United Nations. Washington has already rejoined the embarrassing UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and is likely to sign up to the International Criminal Court and a host of UN treaties that threaten US interests. Barack Obama gave one of the most embarrassing and cringe-worthy speeches in American history at the UN General Assembly last September. President Bush, never a big fan of Turtle Bay, wisely kept his country out of the ICC and the HRC, and firmly resisted calls for him to sign the Kyoto Protocol as well.

    5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship


    I don’t recall George W Bush ever throwing a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office or giving the British Prime Minister an insulting pack of DVDs. President Bush recognized Great Britain as America’s closest friend and ally, and placed the Special Relationship at the very heart of US foreign policy. Under Obama, the Anglo-American alliance has reached its lowest point since the Suez Crisis of 1956, a damning indictment of his world leadership. Bush possessed a genuine affection for the British people, their great heritage and their role in the world. Barack Obama cannot even bring himself to mention Britain in a major policy address or acknowledge the sacrifice of British forces in Afghanistan.

    6. Bush cultivated key allies

    Granted, Bush was hardly the most popular leader the US has ever had in Europe. But he did invest a great deal of time and effort in cultivating a strong personal relationship with several key European leaders, including Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi. President Obama has largely ignored building alliances with European heads of state, and seems indifferent towards the transatlantic alliance. His administration has placed far greater emphasis upon backing the rise of a European superstate, than it has on strengthening ties wit close allies. The Obama administration has also succeeded in damaging the partnership between Israel and the United States, something no president has achieved since Jimmy Carter.

    7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

    The Obama White House’s appalling surrender to Moscow’s demands to scrap Third Site missile defence was a shameful act in the face of Russian intimidation. It was an agreement the Bush Administration had painstakingly negotiated with key allies Poland and the Czech Republic, and the ensuing US withdrawal was a massive propaganda victory for Vladimir Putin and a huge betrayal of America’s friends in central and eastern Europe. It also demonstrated hesitation over adequately funding and building an effective global missile defence system, vital to the defence of the West against a mounting Iranian threat.

    8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

    One of the gravest mistakes of Obama’s first year in office has been his reluctance to describe the conflict against al-Qaeda and its backers as a global war. He dropped the idea of a War on Terror within days of entering office, which was subsequently renamed as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”. President Bush was right to rally his country behind a large-scale long war, one which may last for several decades, against an enemy that seeks the destruction of the West.

    9. Bush did not compromise US security

    The Obama administration’s zealous drive to dismantle the Bush administration’s infrastructure for dealing with al-Qaeda, including the promised closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, is having zero effect on lessening the threat the United States faces from Islamist terrorists. In fact, the followers of Bin Laden are now further emboldened by the President’s weakness, as demonstrated by the recent failed Detroit bombing attempt. President Bush was right to use all the tools at his disposal to keep America safe in the face of a vicious enemy. Barack Obama’s PR offensive to win over the hearts and minds of America’s enemies is already a spectacular failure.

    10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

    A constant theme of Barack Obama’s speeches has been to describe the war in Iraq as a “war of choice”, underscoring his own intense opposition to the war, hardly a message of support for the more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers still stationed in the country. He also spent months dithering over whether to send additional US forces to the war in Afghanistan, and when he finally did make an announcement of an extra 30,000 troops it was tempered by the simultaneous declaration of an exit strategy, and a warning that America could not wage war against the Taliban indefinitely. This was hardly a display of Churchillian grit by the Commander-in-Chief. In contrast, President Bush never failed to give his soldiers the full, unequivocal backing they deserved, and always spoke in terms of achieving victory, instead of artificial timetables that hand the initiative to the enemy.
     
  2.  
  3. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    451
    Bush was, diplomatically speaking, uncouth but the man had substance.Obama is all dressing up and is getting increasingly boring.Democrats lost their Camelot in Massachusetts to republicans,that must be quite telling of the American mood.
     
  4. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    I prefer GW Bush too. He pulled the US into multiple confrontations at the same time Iraq, Afgan., N.Korea, and Iran, and ... and finished his tenure with the US swirling down in an unprecedented financial crisis. A Nobel prize for peace should have been awarded to him.

    In contrast Obama's smart power may be more sugar-coated and therefore more poisonous in disguise. I don't like it - like a Chinese saying to the effect that hypocrisy is more dangerous than bluntness.
     
  5. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Is this a satire? Because it sure looks like one.

    Bush did exactly what the OBL wanted US to do, to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and get mired there in a guerrilla conflict. The Iraq was and the torture of people was a perfect recipe for disaster. It was Bush's policies that have allowed AQ type groups to recruit followers the were impossible before Iraq war. It was Bush and Rumsfeld who completely ignore Pakistan and Afghanistan giving a free hand to Musharraf and the warlords there that led to 6 years lost in Afghanistan and the rise of Taliban there. If the Taliban have strengthened then its because of Bush's policies. Something that was certainly not good for India. He was just interested in placating India but making money by selling us military hardware and the nuclear deal. Not strategically keeping Pakistan in check.

    Obama has realized the fake evidence that Bush manufactured against Iraq was a mistake and rightly apologized for it. The US international standing has improved greatly under Obama which was all but trashed under Bush. Bush had been instrumental in alienating most if not all of his EU allies. The AQ middle and lower leadership has been disrupted thanks to the step up in the drone program into FATA. Something that Bush did not want to do, so as to not antagonize Musharraf. Not to mention that Bush presided over the greatest financial crisis the US has ever seen since the great depression. Maybe that's why the Americans consistently vote for him to be one of the worst US presidents of all time.

    We still have to wait and see how Obama completes his first term before we can give a judgment on him individually, but I doubt he would come off as anywhere as bad as Bush has been for the Americans in particular and the world in general.

    Is George W Bush the worst ever US president?
     
  6. AirforcePilot

    AirforcePilot Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Florida
    I prefer Bush over Obama any day of the week.
     
  7. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    I think Bush was better... far better than Nobel peace prize winner Obama. I dont agree with the author's 10 reasons. But on the whole Bush seemed to atleast know where he was going unlike Obama. As they say, no wind is favourable to the one who does not know where to sail. Obama's policy has no direction. Maybe, we are witnessing the eventual downward spiral of US of A.
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,228
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The author has made some good points according to him. Just that i dont agree withe Bush identifying and going after evil. Going after evil was the good part, but he was wrong in identifying the evil and hence the wrong war in Iraq. I think Iraq war was his personal war more than anything else. It would have made more sense if he had gone after Iran which is a bigger threat.
    I dont agree with the point of Bush advancing freedom as he did business with those whoever he thought was fit to do business with including Musharraf.

    Other points are good. As far as i can think, a powerful America is in Indias interest now that we have a good relationship with them. Bush takes all the credit for it and the point about him developing special relations and allies is bang on. Obama on the other hand has put some of those relations on the back burner and that will hurt the US in the long run.

    All in all Bush beats Obama hands down as of now.
     
  9. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    517
    Location:
    California
    Come on Guys, .......are you really going to post this type of horseshit on DFI.

    Its obvious that this whole piece is written by some far right wing republican moron called Nile Gardiner.
    There is no objectivity in any of this crap. If this moron who wrote this article had his way - he would have the United States spending 50% of its national budget defending freedom, and fighting 4 different wars in 4 different continents while the rest of the allies do squat.

    George Bush's 8 years was a freaking disaster for the US.
    Close $1 Trillion US dollars and 4000 dead US soldiers and maybe a 100,000 Iraqis dead trying to liberate a screwed-up Iraq from a tin-pot dictator like Saddam.

    I am not big on censorship, but there should be a level of quality control on DFI where the MODS delete threads that are just plain STUPID !!
     
  10. Parashuram1

    Parashuram1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Buddy, in that way you could say that Obama has been elected due to an increased support from far-left socialists jihadi apologists. Now why used the second term here is because Obama has been far softer on terrorism as compared to what Bush was. Obama is more of a Leftist sympathizer than any other neutral presidents.

    George Bush might have have his share of mis-adventures and I believe that if he wanted to avenge his country's loss, he should have just waged the war, ended it and returned back to USA rather than waste his time in the region. This is where he made a big mistake of draining the US economy.

    The Iraq war was another costly affair which the US shouldn't have engaged in. Wars are costly especially the overseas ones like US engages. But since USA has taken the responsibility of a superpower, naturally it has to forego somethings in order to retain its status.

    Regarding deleting this thread, I think DFI is a democratic forum and every member has a right to express his opinion as long as he doesn't hurt anyone.
     
  11. kuku

    kuku Respected Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6wO9qcNxAE

    Little Bush
    :D

    Seriously though i don't get why so many of my countrymen get excited about US domestic policy, screw obama, the best US leader for us was John McCain, his talk of isolating Russia and PRC while supporting democratic nations like India and Brazil was exactly the sort of radical thought we would have loved for the coming decade.

    Instead we have this Obama guy crying about outsourcing and telling american kids to be ready for indian and chinese students.

    To us it really does not matter if US government is from the right or left or centre, What matters to us is how they fit into our foreign policy.

    (Although when i look at how many of my fellow students went to the USA to study i get why so many are interested in their politics)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015

Share This Page