We won't have George W. Bush to kick around anymore. Wait, one more time!

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 12:39 AM Share

My latest column for The National Interest is now online. It assesses the strategic legacy of Bush 43 (hint: it's not pretty).

In the last paragraph, I wade into the Stephen Walt-Peter Feaver brouhaha over Bush's management of the great powers:

Bush’s strategic blunders have been so massive that they explain his greatest tactical success—the management of great-power relations. From a Chinese perspective, George W. Bush was an unparalleled strategic gift. He was a leader of a rival power who accelerated his country’s relative decline, easing the way for a larger Chinese role in the Asia-Pacific region. Of course Beijing would be friendly with a regime like that. The cruelest irony of the Bush administration is that those who will miss him the most will be the other great powers.

It seems kind of churlish to say goodbye on that note, so here's one positive Bushlink for today: Norman Ornstein is correct in his New York Times op-ed today when he writes that, "there is one area where President Bush’s legacy will be strong and admirable — the way he is leaving office."

Enjoy the ranch, George!

EXPLORE:POLITICS, GEORGE W. BUSH, LEGACY, REALISM

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUE13326

1:01 AM ET

January 21, 2009

It was a classic overreach by

It was a classic overreach by a dominating world power. I don't know what the technical poli-sci term is for this, but the Greek term hubris will do fine. I think most of his problems can be traced to this trait, and it was shared by many. The startling aspect of it was how fast it all went down.

BRETT

1:08 AM ET

January 21, 2009

The rumors are that he's

The rumors are that he's selling the ranch and moving to Dallas, since he's bought a home there. Not surprising, since he bought the ranch in 1999 (conveniently just before running for President).

As for the BRIC countries - we'll see. Brazil imagines itself as the rising power of Latin America, but it has issues with poverty and dependence on commodities exports. Russia seemed a lot stronger a year ago, when oil prices appeared to be on the rise forever and Peak Oil seemed just around the corner. As is, they're a petrostate with a decent military and a lot of nuclear missiles (which is why they get so upset about missile defense).

India is big and growing, but it has all the "Developing Nation" issues including massive ethnic and religious cleavages, serious local corruption, and widespread poverty. China is big and growing, with lots of money and a strong export sector (and a rapidly growing military, with probably more than $100 billion in actual military expenditures). However, like India, it has major issues with local corruption (there was some concern way back that the Chinese growth figures were inaccurate because of inflation by local officials), ethnic cleavages (although these aren't dangerous to most Chinese), and massive poverty alongside prosperous middle class and affluent folk.

Say what you will about the US, but we still have an enormous GDP, GDP per capita, diverse economy, comparatively little internal corruption compared to the Developing World, little internal conflict, a solid scientific base, and even a decent industrial base (it has shrunk as a percentage of the economy, and some traditional industries have gone overseas, but there is still a solid amount of industrial output).

I agree that there was a serious over-reach in the Iraq situation.

BALTIMORON

11:12 AM ET

January 21, 2009

That's all snide and pat

That's all snide and pat about international politics, but what about the world economy? Would a Democratic administration have pricked the housing bubble any gentler? Championed the Doha Round?