The World That Bush Will Leave to His Successor

Reader Comments
Back to article

Readin this article in light of the 2009 peaceful, cyclical Iraqi elections is interesting. What the Arab countries would fear most now is the success of this fledgling democracy. Note the parties who won the elections. Iraqis are ready for a unified Iraq, governed by it's people and a government accountable in some way to its people.
Best regards to Iraq and the brave men and women who participate in the process.

kadamson of WY 1:05PM February 16, 2009

History is rife with campaigns that were waged for various reasons .The stated truth almost always obscures more compelling but at the time too sensitive intelligence that only time & the faith in our leaders can put into perspective.The benefits are obvious in an Iraq that has been freed of a despot,held elections & is in the process of dialogue towards buiding consensus among Kurds, Shia & Sunni . Al Qaeda rose from the remnants of the Arab Brotherhood ,Mujahadeen & Wahabists under Clinton. WWII upon revision ,could have been averted if Hitler had been taken more seriously as a future threat as well as Japanese militarist ambitions in the Pacific Rim & Asia. All ,I might add ,under the aegis of a Democrat with his "fireside chats" ...

John Patrick of TX 10:58AM October 09, 2008

History is rife with campaigns that were waged for various reasons .The stated truth almost always obscures more compelling but at the time too sensitive intelligence that only time & the faith in our leaders can put into perspective.The benefits are obvious in an Iraq that has been freed of a despot,held elections & is in the process of dialogue towards buiding consensus among Kurds, Shia & Sunni . Al Qaeda rose from the remnants of the Arab Brotherhood ,Mujahadeen & Wahabists under Clinton. WWII upon revision ,could have been averted if Hitler had been taken more seriously as a future threat as well as Japanese militarist ambitions in the Pacific Rim & Asia. All ,I might add ,under the aigis of a Democrat with his "fireside chats" ...

John Patrick of TX 10:48AM October 09, 2008

I agree with the reader who said that Bush's legacy will be better in the long run. After all, it was Clinton's failure to deal with Al-Qaeda in the 1990s that led to the events of 9/11 and beyond.

Mark von Boll of NY 12:36PM October 08, 2008

I've always found Mr.Ajami's thoughts to be very well reasoned. I would normally be put off by anyone seeming to paint President Bush's record with a positive touch, but I'm willing to grant Mr.Ajami a pass. It is true that McCain or Obama will have to deal with the foreign policy consequences of President Bush's decisions. Both men will likely have to change the nature of their campaign statements on all the conflicts currently underway. The question that Mr.Ajami fails to ask is what will the American people support? Without support, neither man would have success in resolving our problems in Afghanistan or the Middle East. Perhaps it will take another election to settle that issue.

Puller58 of TX 8:06AM October 08, 2008

History will be kinder to President Bush than his contemporaries have been. He had no choice but to wage war on Afghanistan, given what had happened on 9/11 and Al-Qaeda's strong links to the Taliban in that country. The Iraq war is more controversial, but there is no doubt that Saddam would have hurt the US given the slightest chance. The US is better off without him. Another positive short-term consequence of the Iraq war is that Libya gave up its intentions of building a nuclear bomb. The long-term advantage is yet to fully develop. I believe in the not too distant future, the Iraqi situation will vindicate President Bush's removal of Saddam. It already has started doing so.

Husam Dughman 2:43PM October 07, 2008

History will be kinder to President Bush than his contemporaries have been. He had no choice but to wage war on Afghanistan, given what had happened on 9/11 and Al-Qaeda's strong links to the Taliban in that country. The Iraq war is more controversial, but there is no doubt that Saddam would have hurt the US given the slightest chance. The US is better off without him. Another positive short-term consequence of the Iraq war is that Libya gave up its intentions of buiding a nuclear bomb. The long-term advantage is yet to fully develop. I believe in the not too distant future, the Iraqi situation will vindicate President Bush's removal of Saddam. It already has started doing so.

Husam Dughman 2:39PM October 07, 2008

Fouad Ajami wrote a great article about Bush's legacy without taking sides - that's a good thing. However, there was no mention of the nightmare of baggage left to Bush by 8 painful years of Bill Clinton. Everything Clinton did was for the short term - long term, that's what we have right now! The next President will have to clean up the messes of 16 years worth of bad decisions - is anyone up for that task?

R.G. Neil of UT 7:02PM October 01, 2008

The writer well known personality in the Western media world has successfuly put the above article not to make a point but to please all side of the conflicts.
He has briliantly touched the Bush Administation by not critizing nor approving with their acts of terrorism.
He has mentioned Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but very mildly touched them as dictators.
In one word, He has to make a living by not hirt either side.

Joseph M. Hovsepian of NJ 3:05PM September 24, 2008