[Peace-discuss] Who's got change?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Here a phlegmatic conservative worries implicitly that Obama's FP will simply 
follow on to Bush's, and well he might.  In fact, if McCain is any part of the 
military strategist he claims to be, he'll outflank Obama by the fall and make 
himself the candidate of peace in the Greater Middle East (so we can deal with 
the Real Problem, China), over against Obama, the candidate of continuity...  --CGE]

	What Bush hath wrought
	By Andrew J. Bacevich
	July 1, 2008

FEW AMERICANS, whatever their political persuasion, will mourn George W. Bush's 
departure from office. Democrats and Republicans alike are counting the days 
until the inauguration of a new president will wipe the slate clean.

Yet in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The 
administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a 
considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the 
following:

	*Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global 
war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

	*Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a 
far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

	*Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role 
of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

	*Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan 
used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

	*Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining 
to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

	*Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest 
shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

	*Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign 
policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising 
"global leadership";

	*Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the 
Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of 
Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare 
their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost 
entirely malignant, achievement.

Bush's harshest critics, left liberals as well as traditional conservatives, 
have repeatedly called attention to this record. That criticism has yet to 
garner mainstream political traction. Throughout the long primary season, even 
as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed 
oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether 
global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, 
whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in 
Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st 
century.

Now only two candidates remain standing. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama 
both insist that the presidential contest will mark a historic turning point. 
Yet, absent a willingness to assess in full all that Bush has wrought, the 
general election won't signify a real break from the past.

The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on 
Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the 
president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's 
post-9/11 policies. McCain's determination to stay the course in Iraq expresses 
his commitment not simply to the ongoing conflict there, but to the ideas that 
gave rise to that war in the first place. While McCain may differ with the 
president on certain particulars, his election will affirm the main thrust of 
Bush's approach to national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the 
folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest 
manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, 
thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, 
ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, 
Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current 
administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of 
principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in 
the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting 
the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and 
to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire 
campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for 
the presidency.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston 
University. His new book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American 
Exceptionalism."

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/