|
Edited on Mon Sep-27-04 12:34 AM by Paul_H
I am currently reading Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship by Jon Meacham. And I was struck by some of the reasons that Roosevelt chose to run and was elected to an unprecedented four terms as president. Paramount among these was the very personal relationships Roosevelt had with allied leaders, primarily Churchill and Stalin. Churchill particularly felt it important that Roosevelt continue as president to ensure that America would continue its strong support of Britain during the war. The British people, as well as the people of many other countries, looked upon Roosevelt as a great leader and a deliverer from tyranny.
There was also the great involvement of Roosevelt in military strategy and at times even tactics. Roosevelt was very engaged in the war and the way it was fought. Despite his illness he traveled internationally to support the war effort, was well briefed, and used his powers as president to ensure the troops got what they needed.
Compare this with the current situation. President Bush has an official relationship with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but it does not appear that the relationship goes deeper than that. Blair has hitched his star to Bush, and the result for Blair has been rather too reminiscent of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. While British citizens were grateful to Churchill for the help he was able to arrange from the U.S. through Roosevelt, Blair's ties to Bush are a political liability. Most other international leaders openly oppose Bush's strategy in Iraq. The people of most of the historical allies of the United States are very displeased with the "war on terror" thus far.
As far as involvement in the war, Bush uses it to his political advantage, but does not seem to be managing it closely enough to prevent blunders such as the Abu Graib. More recently, there is the increasing anti-American sentiment in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries, the United States is seen increasingly as an occupying, rather than a liberating, force.
Bush warns against changing horses in mid-stream. But if you look at the rationale behind this cliche: Relationships with world leaders, the image of the United States abroad, the desire to continue the current course in the prosecution of the war, it becomes clear that changing horses in mid-stream is exactly what should happen. For Bush to compare himself to the great wartime presidents of the past is ludicrous. Only sudden, radical, changes in the level of responisibility the president assumes for the war, the relationships with our traditional allies, and especially the way we are viewed by countries where war rages, can lead to any hope of a positive outcome.
President Bush has made wrong decisions in matters of diplomacy and war repeatedly during his administration. The only sane choice for the American people is to elect John Kerry.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
