George W. Bush -- grand strategist

townhall.com ^ | 2/11/04 | Tony Blankley

[Redcoat LI]

You kick A$$.

Magnificent post!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Southack]

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

"Strategery"

[Jewels1091]

wow!! Just wow!!!

[Eisenhower]

That's great. I'm so tired of hearing the phrases "Bush violated international law!" or "He acted unilaterally!" that I could scream. There is no international law to violate! And even if there was, it would be horribly outdated, as this article points out. I'm glad someone can finally see that Bush knows what he's doing in the Middle East and with our foreign policy.

[potlatch]

Bush's grand strategy

This certainly makes good reading!! Wish we could get it out to the 'hoi poli'.

[Young Rhino]

I only have one quibble with the article. W has the fourth grand strategy. Ronald Reagan had the third. Thank (insert your favorite deity here) for both.

[Jorge]

I agree. Bush has become a great world leader over the past 3 years. (I hope Jim Robinson doesn't kick me off FR for posting my opinion on this)

[kimmie7]

Great read. Thanks again kat.

[DoughtyOne]

I suppose the end of the Carter doctrine and the beginning of the Reagan years didn't qualify as a grand scheme in this termite's mind.

Laying waste to a super-power in less than eight years through peaceful means, setting a new economic policy that would essentially see another twenty plus years of prosperity befall this nation, and setting a moral tone that would have seen this nation start the new millinium with high morals, if only 'scratch and sniff' hadn't been elected, weren't worthy of an honorable mention.

Why is Bush policy worthy of all this praise, the intoning of 'sage status' regarding it's merit? Why hell, it's because he's spending on a level only rivaled by Roosevelt, and has made it pefectly clear that he'll bend over backwards for those who are stripping regions of this nation of it's wealth.

In addition Bush is laying the foundation for additional 60 year programs that will lay waste to the possibility of us every getting out from under the big nanny-state. At least this termite was smart enough to glom onto one of his own.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Terry McAwfull!

How did you get in here!

[mylife]

Well Duh! the Ivy league professor finally figured out what we knew all along.....that the old model of the middle east forged upon the fall of the ottoman empire was not working for us, In fact it had turned upon the west.

GW has rightly realized that although the post ottoman middle east was forged by Europeans, its failures were being heaped upon the foot of America due to our role as leaders in the world (post cold war).

If we are to be saddled with being the cause of all the misfortunes of the past as leaders perhaps we the US should act as leaders and take charge of change.

GW has done this, and has set the world on a brave new course.

[TeleStraightShooter]

"so far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions;
- an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform;
- a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia;
- and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates.
- The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

Per AlGore: "...Iraq is a misguided adventure..."
Just Shut Up Al!

[Dolphy]

What a great post. The President is a major man in a political world occupied by small men.

[Consort]

Also bigtime changes in Libya.

[Unam Sanctam]

Reagan was the one who saw the Cold War through to its completion -- as such he was working within the framework of the "grand strategy" established by Roosevelt and Truman (I'm not sure why only Roosevelt and not also Truman get credit for the post WWII grand strategy). At least that's what I'm assuming Gaddis would say.

[america-rules]

"Why hell, it's because he's spending on a level only rivaled by Roosevelt"

Not true if you go by a % of GDP. Not even close ! Spending under Reagan was 25% of GDP and under Bush it's 17.6%.

I'm not defending spending but lets keep the facts correct !

[Y2Krap]

The professor is right on the money. And McAwful and company are still smartin' over the 2000 election. What a choice we had! We had to put either:
1) A BUSH
or --
2) A PRICK
in the White House.

The Right Decision was made then. The Right Decision will be made in 2004. WHY?! Simple. Same choice:-)

[Glenn]

Not true if you go by a % of GDP.

That is such a bogus argument. An immediate alarm that your pocket is being picked by a politician.