John Parisella

John Parisella writes about U.S. politics from his vantage point as the former Delegate-General in New York City for Quebec. Follow John on Twitter: @JohnParisella

Categories: John Parisella

The Bush Hangover

by John Parisella on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:15pm - 10 Comments

It is hard to underestimate the imprint George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech left on U.S. foreign policy. The story has been unfolding ever since, with the invasion of Iraq, the disengagement from bilateral talks with North Korea that had been started under the Clinton Administration, and the continuing alienation from an emerging regional, and possibly nuclear, power in Iran. The Iraq war quickly degenerated into an anti-insurgency operation that remains far from a conclusive; North Korea has once again provoked the ire of the world with its nuclear tests; and, as for Iran, with an election currently underway, it may not be the ideal time for the U.S. to radically alter its approach, but its nuclear enrichment program remains an ongoing source of worry. In the meantime, events in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan have become grounds for serious concern. I know it appears all too easy to blame Bush and Cheney for all this, but eight years of misguided policies cannot be reversed overnight or even in the first year of a new presidency, however well-intentioned or promising it may be.

It has only been about one week since Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama, and policy differences between the two are emerging. While I believe it is too early to predict a Bibi-Obama collision course, it is clear events in the so-called neighbourhood, with Iran and its nuclear program as well as the the ongoing threat of terrorism, make progress very difficult. North Korea’s tests, meanwhile, only reinforce fears that two nations with a penchant for ignoring international opinion and sanctions could join the exclusive club of nuclear-armed countries. They also do nothing to alleviate concerns that nuclear technology might fall into the hands of terrorists—nothing to comfort Israel and other US allies.

The Obama Administration has inherited a dangerous world, full of treachery and always menacing to its national security. This world is largely the product of the failed Bush-Cheney policies. The fact that the former vice president, Dick Cheney, is out crusading for Gitmo remaining open and torture continuing as part of the national security strategy of the United States should not make us forget that he was a major architect of this dangerous world. Everyday that Cheney speaks, we realize that his former boss was derelict in his duty to uphold the Constitution. As a result, Obama and the rest of the world are left fighting off the Bush hangover.

Tags: Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, foreign policy, George W. Bush, iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, nuclear power, U.S. politics

More by John Parisella

sbt

I’d argue that Obama is trying to reverse decades of bad US policy more than simply deal with the Bush legacy. While it’s almost certain that Bush’s rhetoric and actions made North Korea and Iran more belligerent, it didn’t change the fact that these two countries had long-term goals to becoming nuclear states and have had nuclear programs for years. It’s also interesting that you throw in how recent events in Afghanistan and Pakistan have “become grounds for serious concern”. Weren’t we seriously concerned about Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 90s? In hindsight, shouldn’t we have been? The current problems America faces with respect to foreign policy are a bipartisan screw-up. I wish Obama the best in dealing with this mess, but let’s not pretend that it is solely the product of the Bush Republicans.
TJ Cook

“While I believe it is too early to predict a Bibi-Obama collision course, it is clear events in the so-called neighbourhood, with Iran and its nuclear program as well as the the ongoing threat of terrorism, make progress very difficult.”

Agreed. I don’t mean to discount the danger of Iran gaining nuclear arms, but Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal today. While there’s always the threat of truly crazy Iranian leadership pulling the trigger, I don’t think it’s particularly likely given Israel’s ability to deliver massive reprisal.

I think Iran is a useful smokescreen for Bibi, who is not at all interested in negotiating a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue, or even in slowing down expansion of settlements. It’ll be interesting to see this relationship develop – I don’t think it’s in the best interest of Israeli leadership to nurture a rift with the American president, but that depends on how much pressure Obama applies.

http://macleans.ca George B.

You are so right .,Tj . I do not not trust Bibi and I expect Obama to do some tough love or it will get worse.

Sbt
you are right about bi-partisan responsibility over the decades .

http://nathanbauman.com/odysseus Nathan B.

Simple Bush-bashing and Obama-adoration does not good commentary make; one needs some logic and awareness of facts thrown in, too.

The lack of logic in this post by Mr. Parisella is astounding. Parisella naively claims that: 1. Bush’s speech was the cause of US policy in regards to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and 2. that this policy was the cause of bad behavior by these states.

Each of these, if examined properly, cannot possibly be true.

By using rhetorical tricks rather than facts, Mr. Parisella tricks us into thinking that the Iraq situation is much less hopeless than it is. He also writes, “events in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan have become grounds for serious concern”–as though events in Afghanistan and Pakistan were not grounds for concern before, or as though they had nothing to do with 9/11 or the Kashmir terrorist incidents–both of which festered under Clinton’s watch (though they in turn were problems older than Clinton). Similarly, North Korea was in the six-party talks for what it could get out of them; the occupant of the Oval Office can come and go, but the North Korean game will still be the same: nuclear brinkmanship.

The world is a complicated place whose worst problems have long preexisted our southern neighbour’s last President’s terms of office; Macleans should be embarrassed for publishing such pie-in-the-sky nonsense, as thought simple-Bush-bashing should cause us readers to automatically erupt into a chorus of “Amen, brother”‘s.

http://macleans.ca lmn

Nathan
Now I know how people can be gullible after reading your comments . I am sure cheney is your hero . Americans were tricked on Iraq. Simple as that .
Axis of evil was the cause . Just look at where we were in 2000 and compare today .Bush was a unilateral , belligerant leader who lied about torture and fabricated a war .
Yeah i voted for the guy but like a guy who had too much to drink, I now have a hangover .

http://nathanbauman.com/odysseus Nathan B.

lmn, it would be better if you responded only to my actual comments. As for the speech, it was indicative of the changes in US foreign policy that were taking place. The speech was written to support the new policy direction, not originate it. Perhaps means I’m quibbling over language. On the other hand, it would be more correct to say that US foreign policy was reacting to events in the world, not words in a speech. That’s my point: events in the world are bigger and larger and more complicated than people who pin everything on Bush will allow.

http://macleans.ca lmn

Nathan B.
Mentioning the axis of evil gave a direction that linked three nations that were not .Saddam and Iran had had an 8 year war . North Korea had no connection to the Middle East . And none were connected to 9-11. It is nice to try to absolve Bush but he ignored the UN ,fabricated a case for war . So I really do not understand your protection of Bush.

http://nathanbauman.com/odysseus Nathan B.

Apologies for the typo in my sentence on quibbling over language; an unfortunately ironic incident, to be sure.

As for protecting Bush, I’m not going to say that Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread; he made some good decisions (yes, some), some bad ones, and others that the jury is still out on. I don’t want to protect Bush from criticism, and many criticisms can justly be made of his presidency. What I am saying is that the problems and problem-areas mentioned by Mr. Parisella as being Bush’s fault were there before Bush assumed office.

http://macleans.ca lmn

Nathan
I will concede some ares existed before such as iran . An I agree it is easy to blame Bush on everything . I was pro Bush in 2000 because of his compassionate conservativism and his aversion to nation building . But admit , he brought America off course .