Thursday, 31 December 2009

My Politician of the Decade

2009 was a gripping end to the first decade in this country's history when we've only had a Labour Government - look how worse off we are as a consequence. But events within the last week highlight for me, the political event and theme of the decade - the war on terror. The war on terror has defined politics, at home and abroad, in the noughties. It has divided political opinion and often divided the nations of the world. However it is because the War on Terror has played such an important part in the politics of the last ten years that I'm naming George W Bush as my Politician of the Decade.

It has become almost a hobby of some to mock George Bush and for many he is a figure of hate. The shoe-throwing incident in Iraq last year probably summed up the world's opposition to George Bush. But like him or loathe him, nobody can deny that no other single person has played a bigger role on the world stage this last decade than George Bush did in his eight years as President.


I still remember the moment when I first saw the pictures of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001. George Bush's response to that incident was stern and decisive. He launched the War on Terror and so began an armed campaign against Al-Qaeda that is still ongoing today. Many people have died in those conflicts, soldiers and civilians. We even saw the full force of Islamic Terrorism on the streets of London and we were reminded only last week that the threat had not diminished. Barely a week seemed to go by in the noughties without some mention of Iraq, Afghanistan or another front in the War on Terror. Guantanamo Bay and accusations of torture on the part of US authorities have again dominated the headlines these past decade - both features of the War on Terror and the policies of George Bush.


Here in the UK, we have seen our own government follow where Bush led with the PATRIOT Act, with the disgusting attempts to lock up British citizens for 90 days without trial, the introduction of pointless Identity Cards and the increasing powers of state surveillance. This was not the first decade we'd faced the threat of terrorism in the UK but it seems Labour did not learn from previous government's mistakes in relation to Ulster.


Despite the prevailing attitude that one must despise President Bush and everything he stands for, I remain a supporter of his foreign policy endeavours. The spreading of freedom and democracy to the oppressed peoples of the world is a noble and admirable goal - George Bush succeeded in doing that. He was a steadfast supporter of Israel, a lone democracy in an otherwise oppressive region, something for which he should be praised. And one other important foreign policy action of George Bush his opponents conveniently ignore is his hard work in the fight against Malaria and HIV/AIDs in Africa. In George Bush's own words, he should be remembered for liberating 50 million people.


Was he perfect? Of course not. Did he make mistakes? Yes, but to quote John Major: a politician who has never made a mistake has never made a decision. George Bush will never rank amongst Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK as the most popular US Presidents. He will probably remain a world hate-figure for some years to come. But then again, being a great politician is not always the same as being popular. You don't have to be popular to change the world and in the noughties, George Bush certainly did do that.

7 comments:

  1. I'm pretty sure James, that you are one of those people who will argue for something, no matter how ridiculous or absurd, in order to provoke a reaction!

    ReplyDelete
  2. And wasn't it the tories who were in power during the 'previous government's mistakes in relation to Ulster'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually James, sorry to be a nuisance but picking George Bush as politician of the decade is, in my opinion wrong.
    You say 'the War on Terror has played such an important part in the politics of the last ten years', when actually, this was only down to Bush's incompetence. Had his administration been able to coordinate a proper attack on the region in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001/2002, the insurgency there would not have been so strong, and potentially al-Qaida, without its figurehead, would also have been weakened.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/osama-bin-laden-senate-report
    Yes, he changed the world.
    But did he improve it?
    I don't think so.
    And if all a politician has to do to be classed as a 'Politican of the Decade' is change the world by creating, indirectly or directly, the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, whether in Palestine, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, among others; destroy relations between the 'western' world and much of the middle east, then that is just plain wrong.
    Furthermore, you say 'He was a steadfast supporter of Israel, a loan [sic] democracy in an otherwise oppressive region'. Although I agree with the concept of Israel, whereby Jewish people have somewhere where they can feel free from oppression, oppression that history has shown us, the fact is, Israel is oppressive towards Palestine. In the last decade, Israel has killed some insurgents, but also many civilians, and controlling and limiting Palestinians' lives in a way that only further creates the hate and violence that Israel attempts to fight against. (I am not condoning the actions Hamas terrorists and the like but am saying that Israel has got it wrong-with the help of George Bush).
    Yes, what he's done in his work with Malaria and Aids is, admittedly, impressive, and I won't take that away from him.
    However, the fact remains, under Bush's reign, the world has one step FORWARD and two steps BACK.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh Robin, where do I start?

    First of all, yes, the Conservatives were in power when we interned people without trial. I don't seek to defend their conduct in any way.

    And as for Mr Bush, the execution of both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was poor (although not the principle of either war) I give you that. The point I was trying to make in my blog was not that George Bush's actions were beneficial (I happen to think they were) but that no other single politician has had such an enormous influence across the world in the last ten years. Can you name me one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No indeed I cant but maybe he's testimony to what should not happen again: no single individual should be allowed the power to bring such influence and power. It should instead be by a number of individuals (representatives) such as the UN or the EU.
    I think that America's actions of the past decade have limited its power anyway, at least in terms of respect from other countries...
    By the way, you hint that I agree with the principles of the two wars; I do not. I believe the conflict in Afghanistan was possibly justifiable, but that the Regime Change War in Iraq, an Illegal war, was not. Dubya had an incredible thirst for oil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think James you are right (atleast on this). What you miss out is George Bush ( as well as supporting Israel) was the first President to mention a two state solution (while in office).

    And may I say Robin that the world does indeed need less power invested in a concentration of very few individuals. But the UN is hardly the voice for the masses. The UN has on its permanent security council China and Russia, and the UN often votes to protect interests in the region. And your point about oil is simply left-wing dogma. Much of Iraqs oil has been sold, yes, but to the benefit of many country's businesses in open auctions presided over by elected politicians. Which is infinitely better than it being the private property of Saddam.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stern and decisive my arse, he carried on reading a book about a little goat after being informed of the strikes.

    ReplyDelete