Over at Megan McArdles new home, she is talking about Iraq. How can I be so sure that George W. Bush will be a horrible president? First, remember that I am only talking about his disaster in Iraq, not his economic legacy which is going to be viewed even more harshly. Well, let me tell you why Iraq will be an albatross for Bush even in 40 years:
The salient point is that as time is going by, it is becoming more and more clear that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. Unless we somehow get some jaw-dropping evidence that Iraq had nuclear tipped ICBMs, future historians are simply going to look at this war the way most logical people do today: It was unnecessary and harmful to US long term and short term interests.
There are two different scenarios possible in the future, with of course different odds of happening. Lets look at the doomsayers view that we will be attacked and under serious threat to the US in the future from some middle eastern or Islamic group. This is the situation that the Bush legacy will prosper most, as it vindicates his view that there is an actual threat. Clearly, Iraq cannot do this in the guise of its nation state and will be unable to do this for at least 30 years due to infrastructure constraints . It must therefore be done by either another state, which means he attacked the wrong place, or a non-state actors, which is the standard liberal view of things and also means he attacked the wrong place. the other scenario is where the rights boogyman is not actually dangerous therefore GWB is a horrible president.
Rove is just trying to explain to the morons that, yes, of course we Republicans are going to use the "stab in the back" meme. We start by saying that George Bush is a visionary whos policies were not given time to bear fruit by those American-hating liberal fags.
Something else to remember about Truman was that his legacy was pretty quickly reinterpreted. His vision didn't require a century to be vindicated.
By the time I was growing up late 1970s, he was already had a good reputation. Bush isn't going to have anything like that happen with his legacy, if simply for the reason that it is completely obvious that he's botched the occupation. The end result of Truman's Korea was the one of the greatest economic success stories in world history, where south korea jumped centuries in a few decades. Already by the 70's there was ample evidence that South Korea was going to be an economic powerhouse.
</div>Iraq has only an extremely small chance of imitating SKs economic miracle which was responsible for a significant portion of the reinterpretation of Trumans policy.
By the late 70s, South Korea had over 15 years of 7%+ growth. By the time I was a frosh in high school ('82), you had articles with titles "The next Japan?" talking about south Korea.
It is pretty easy to be sure that Iraq wont be an high growth exception, as Japan, SK and a few other asian countries are the exception, not the rule. Most countries never make it to the first world. They don't make it to the first world with policies like those instituted in Iraq, with the kind of govt we are supporting in Iraq, with the lack of national will we are supporting in Iraq. Additionally, Iraq is a desert. I don't see them becoming economic powerhouse simply because it is so hot there.
<div style="text-align: center;"> </div>Let's look at a likely timeline, and note that Iraq is already longer than the Korean War, which only lasted 3 years.
IF we started an orderly withdrawl today, it will be 2 years until completion. Assume roughly 4 years of semi-anarchy, if you see some miracle govt appearing out of this low-scale civil war prior to that, you are not paying attention. Then the rebuilding of infrastructure begins - 10 years to complete. As bad as Korea was, Iraq is more throughly destroyed.
Then we have to assume that this pie-in-the-sky govt is not only competent, but far sighted enough to be one of the exceptions, where they become incredibly economically successful over a 40 year period. Remember, it was govt policy that has forged Japan, China, SK and the other little tigers - well intentioned, well thought out govt that did many, many hundreds of major and minor policies that formed a govt/private sector alliance completely designed to boost these countries into the modern world. I just don't see any of these things happening with any high probability in a country that has large oil reserves.
As a result, even 30 years from today, Iraq is going to be a mess. GWB is going to be viewed as a president who made a horrible mistake, and one of the worst presidents ever, and without a doubt the worst president of the modern age.
The best case for Iraq to become economically successful is for oil to go to $200 a barrel. Current prices in the $70 range don't do it for Iraq. Even at $100, there will simply become another Nigeria. Oil must go much, much higher than $100 a barrel for Iraq to have large economic success. And of course, $200 oil is the case, it will be clear the GWB was focused on the wrong priority during his presidency, making him a horrible president.
He has put himself into a situation where there are very few outs, to use a poker term. Thats why liberal commentators use the words "and a pony too"when talking about the war, because almost every situation where success happens has a magical pony appearing out of somewhere that saves the day for GWB.