Historian Re History
Posits it will shows George W. Bush was right. Andrew Roberts at UK Telegraph:
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.
The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America’s borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush
after 9/11.The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was “all about oil”, or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.
Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam’s own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN’s food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.
A welcome perspective from across the pond. Read the rest at the Telegraph.
Related at Think Progress: Cheney on whether the Iraq War was worth the 4,500 Americans killed, “I think so.”
Gateway looks at the numbers and the news.
Re Roberts, great minds think alike. Prior from Crittenden:
Obama’s Debt of Gratitude to George W. Bush
Your Roberts bookshelf:
Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900
Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership
Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle for Modern Europe
The Art of War: Modern Warfare
And somewhat ironically, given how much imaginary history there is out there,
What Might Have Been: Imaginary History from Twelve Leading Historians
Here’s a project pitch. How about “What People Think Was: Imaginary History In Our Time.”
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 6:36 am on Thursday, January 15, 2009
4 Responses to “Historian Re History”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden, British historian Andrew Roberts provides one of the first relevant views on how history will [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I don’t expect Mr. Bush to get his due in his, or my, lifetime, but I do believe it will happen eventually. To my shame, I didn’t vote for him the first time around because I thought he would be terrible at it. I’m not exactly happy to be proven wrong, given the circumstances of GWOT, but more than once I’ve thanked God that Al Gore was not elected.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
President Bush is a study in contrasts, on the one hand he refused to buckle under pressure on Afghanistan and Iraq, and on the other he tried to garner a bipartisan consensus on immigration (in the face of opposition from the public). He was a superhero to some extent (GWOT) and a wimp in other respects (spending). If he had resisted McCain’s tarnishing of his record, we might have had a different result on Nov. 4th. I too think that history will treat him with honor, and those of his cohort who damned him with faint praise, disdain.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
[...] British historian says history will remember Bush as a good president –A historical view [...]