- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 5, 2007

With all the talk about President Bush’s failed legacy by the nattering nabobs of negativism, one might think he won’t have one.

Actually, he has cut a wide and often determined swath in the troubled course that history has dealt him, with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, defining his presidency and the war-footing decade in which he has governed. Other big events, from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to several very large domestic initiatives he initiated and carried out, will have positive repercussions long after he has left office.

Perhaps it is a bit premature to talk of his legacy at this juncture in the twilight of his two-term presidency, because we cannot foretell the future. No one can say with certainty what the last 1½ years of his second term will hold or whether the events that follow his presidency will vindicate his decision-making.

While the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington marked the first year of his presidency, his historic legacy will be about what he did afterward to keep that from happening again — at least on his watch.

He struck back at the al Qaeda terrorists who once had a safe haven in Afghanistan, killed or dispersed their Taliban allies and leaders and replaced their government in Kabul with a pro-Western regime. The Taliban armies resumed their attacks but the democratically elected government we installed will be there for a long time to come, defended by U.S. and NATO forces as its anti-terrorist struggle continues.

Mr. Bush’s four-year war in Iraq has deeply divided Americans as the U.S. death toll mounts in the face of a furious guerrilla war that shows no signs of ending. Its eventual outcome is uncertain as we wait to see if the increase in U.S. forces can show some security improvements there.

But whatever happens on that score, Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq — toppling its terrorist government and installing a democratic government that I believe will outlast its enemies — will remain a significant achievement.

Five, 10 or 25 years from now, if that system of government still stands, whatever its internal problems and challenges, it will be seen as a major geopolitical change in a region marked by despotism and instability. And Mr. Bush will be seen as the leader who brought about that change.

The other national security legacy of his presidency, as of now, will be on the broader global war against terrorism and his actions after September 11, 2001, to keep our country safe and call to the world to declare war on terrorism.

Mr. Bush is an admirer of Winston Churchill who in his years out of power was a lone voice in Great Britain that warned of the Nazi threat to his island nation. Churchill’s warnings went unheeded until the Germans were toppling countries in Europe while, as one critic said, Britain’s pacifist leaders “were weekending in the country.”

Like Churchill, Mr. Bush has been warning of the growing terrorist menace manifested anew last week in Great Britain, while many in the Democratic opposition complained that the domestic security steps he took to prevent future attacks went too far.

But the steps he took to defend our homeland — the Patriot Act, beefed-up defenses and satellite surveillance to spy on terrorists and their cells in this country — have kept us safe. This, too, will be one of Mr. Bush’s legacies, one that will loom even larger if, God forbid, the next president lowers our guard and we are attacked again.

In domestic matters, he took risks and had some spectacular failures, but the successes will likely be with us for sometime to come.

His proposed Social Security investment accounts and his initial idea of a guest worker migrant program were blocked on Capitol Hill, but there’s no doubt in my mind both will be reconsidered in the future long after he has left office.

Other proposals that were enacted will be a big part of his legacy: The tax cuts that prevented an economic collapse in the wake of September 11, financial scandals and Katrina; and, most certainly, the addition of two conservative jurists, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the Supreme Court that have tipped its decisions sharply to the right (something Ronald Reagan was unable to do).

Story Continues →