Double Or Nothing: Salvaging Bush’s Legacy
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on July 18th, 2007 in Bush Man Date(1)
George Bush will wake up one of these mornings and realize that there is one obvious way to salvage his Presidential legacy — solve the bitter Kashmir dispute that has simmered between India and Pakistan ever since the British, in their colonial wisdom, carved the two countries out of what used to be one, in 1947.
This dispute has not just simmered for 60 years, it has boiled over several times into all-out war. In 1947, and 1965, and again in 1999. And, for many months in 2002 there was a very real concern in the west, especially in the U.S., that India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear war. In May 2002, the State Depoartment was concerned enough that it was “urging Americans to leave India and (authorized) a voluntary departure of non-essential embassy personnel”.
Clearly one of the hot spots of the world. Moreover, in terms of international diplomacy, it’s practically a virgin, untouched hot spot, one that nobody has so far been able to make any headway at defusing. Nobody has even been able to mount a serious, creditable effort. Just a big fat opportunity, sitting there for Bush to seize on, and still carve out an enduring legacy for himself.
If Bush could solve Kashmir and bring peace to India and Pakistan, that would be as big and bold and beautiful as Nixon’s historic visit to China. And no matter what other past presidents he likes to compare himself to in public, in private — and especially when thinking wistfully about his legacy — Bush has to be comparing himself to Nixon a lot. And he has to be saying to himself: “If Nixon could salvage his legacy, I can too. It’s just a matter of finding the right issue.” (And at some level even Bush surely realizes that nuclear strikes against Iran — or bunker-buster strikes against their nuclear facilities — isn’t exactly the way to carve out a positive legacy?)
Also, I imagine that Bush is not the only one in this administration who is seriously alarmed about the clock ticking away on his chances for building himself a lasting legacy. Surely Condi Rice too is pacing up and down in frustration, both at how little she has achieved in her time as Secretary of State, and at how little time is left to her now. For Bush, it’s only about legacy; for Condi, it’s also about future ambitions.
This lady has got to do something big, and she’s got to do it soon. And it has to be something where Prick Cheney is not already arrayed against her as both an immovable object and an irresistible force. Something where he might even be an ally.
(2)
Isn’t that just what America, and the world, needs? To see the likes of Condi Rice and Prick Cheney go to work on a Pakistani president who is increasingly more precarious politically, increasingly more desperate, to see them bring their own unique geo-political insights to bear on this dispute between two bristly nuclear-armed rivals?
And let’s not forget that these two countries are steeped in an unreasoning blood-feud hatred which easily rivals the Sunni-Shia love-fest in Iraq. Just the kind of combustible material that Prick Cheney’s band of merry men would love to be let loose to play with. Because once you set that region burning, no one will be able to put out the flames for decades. It’ll be just like the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, only better. This time we’ll have got two different countries involved. Two countries with nuclear weapons and a critical mass of blood-feud hatred for each other. With any luck, we’ll no longer have to wear the shame of being the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in a war. Equally important, we won’t even have to commit our own troops or treasure. Just rub those two sticks together, and let all the dry tinder that is their political baggage burst into flame.
And then the arsonists in firefighters’ uniforms can have a field day pretending to put out the flames. Of course, a couple of instances of mistakenly pouring gasoline on the flames instead of water are only to be expected. The fog of diplomacy, you know.
And there will, of course, be a million ways later to spin how none of it was our fault. There’s always “Who could have imagined…” and “I would surely remember something like that”. Not to mention “Go eff yourself!”
Rice and Cheney — George Bush’s legacy is clearly in very good hands.
(3)
Oops! Totally forgot to mention the double bonus silver lining. Osama bin Laden’s safe haven might very literally be wiped out.
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I don’t know if I’d trust this gang with crafting another of their solutions for yet another hot spot. Really, when was the last time they addressed any complex issue with a comforting level of competence?
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 7:38 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
yes, that was the point of (2)
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 7:48 am ¶
section9 wrote:
The problem with what you are proposing is that it forces India to actually give up territory (rather lovely territory, at that) to Pakistan. The entire Kashmir, Karghil area has been fought over not simply because it has a Muslim majority that would normally be part of Pakistan, but also because control of the Kashmir gives India an invasion gateway into the Pakistani lowlands.
Sure, an agreement between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir would be nice. So would the development of warp drive. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen anytime soon. India isn’t going to give up the hammerlock it holds over Pakistan as long as the Pakistanis have an atomic program and the ISI continues to fund Islamist irredentist movements in Karghil and in India proper.
All that can be done, for the time being, is to enforce the present status quo of Cold Peace. Besides, Condi is smart enough to have bet on India and Japan, which was something that Democrats didn’t pick up on. We initiated the U.S./India nuclear treaty for a reason. She also expanded the U.S./Japan Naval treaty of 2005 for the same. And we’ve been busy with the Australians, as well, who are knee-deep in the F-22 program and their own naval expansion.
People who actually do this stuff for a living understand that we have vastly improved our strategic position in the Pacific Ocean in the past six years, an immense achievement during a period of setbacks in the Middle East. People in the Republican Party who are concerned about Chinese ambitions understand this, which is why Condi has lots of admirers.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:02 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Proposing???
what pray have I proposed?
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:14 am ¶
matt wrote:
relatively coherent argument up to that point. then it all kind of went pear-shaped.
still better than your previous efforts here. i do find your continuing rice defending here and elsewhere to be cute, if annoying.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:17 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
that condi stuff always brings you out of the woodwork, doesn’t it?
your gallant knight-in-shining-armor act might help to raise her credibility in the eyes of some of our readers if your comment actually displayed some modicum of reading comprehension on your part, some small smattering of sense.
you are probably best off referring only to things other than the content of my post.
when you start saying my post somehow proposed a solution to the Kashmir mess, and that my proposed solution involved India giving up territory to Pakistan, you raise basic doubts not only about your credibility or your reading comprehension but also about your sanity.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:25 am ¶
mirth wrote:
Interesting post and well presented, with a subject I haven’t seen covered.
We’ll see no peace-making from this administration. Yet once the spinmeisters go into overdrive, Bush may eventually receive kudos ala Reagan style. Such is the attention span of the US public.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:57 am ¶
Larry wrote:
I don’t think Bush cares about a legacy, knows what one is, or could care less how to have one.
Bush is an out of control madman, whose sole desire is to overtake ever oilfield in the Mideast, thus enabling him to take over the world.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 12:52 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Out of control madman: no argument.
But I imagine he would have behaved a little differently over the last six and half years if “overtaking” every oilfield in the Mideast was his sole desire.
Also, I’m inclined to assume that the inordinate amount of time he has been spending with “leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians” summoned to the White House, discussing questions like “What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I’m facing? How will history judge what we’ve done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?” seems to show a President obsessed with his legacy rather than one obsessed with overtaking every oilfield in the Mideast.
Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶
milo wrote:
he sure sleeps an awful lot.
Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 1:13 am ¶