George Walker Bush: "Grand Strategist" or just a miserable president?

Recently, people have been buzzing about the almost ancient 2/11/2004 Washington Times editorial by Tony Blankley titled, "George W. Bush — grand strategist," and depending on individual perspective, it seems that many are referring to it with some confusion, exaltation, excitement, skepticism, and/or trepidation depending on how they view George Walker Bush and his presidency.

Washington Times Editor Blankley's piece refers to a book as the catalyst for discussion that portrays Bush as one of the top 3 American strategists in our history. The author of the book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press) released in March of 2004, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University.

Note that George Walker Bush, Jr. graduated from the same Yale University attended by Prof. Gaddis and also by George Herbert Walker Bush, Sr. So, do "birds of a feather flock together?" Perhaps they work together in "mysterious ways" to develop a myth and talk up a book?

I don't think that the presentation of liberal and more mainstream media showing the president as a 21st Century ogre vs. Gaddis' book portraying Bush as a strategy genius is confusing. Being a grand strategist can be a good or a bad thing. The previous two examples of "Grand Strategists" referred to by the author — presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe — did so mostly for the good of the majority. In contrast, the Bush administration's premeditated manipulation and/or erroneous presentation of faulty and misleading intelligence and PR, tax cuts for the wealthy, aggressive military strategy, etc., were not good for the majority of Americans, especially for those thousands of innocent American children soldiers and Iraqi civilians who died for some hazy but noble objective.

In retrospect, former President (and highly decorated General) Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation highlights the evolution and current status of the Bush administration. Eisenhower warned us of the potential for irreparable harm that may be caused by the greed and power of the developing "Military/Industrial Complex". Since Eisenhower prophetically made this observation back in the 1950's, the entity he viewed has become a partnership of the corporate Sector and the military and government.

Eisenhower's speech is an interesting and worthwhile read into the inner workings of our political system over the past 50 years and how wrong a government can go. Unfortunately, Eisenhower's message has come to fruition.

My own opinion is that Bush's personal history shows that he is a first-class screw-up, as shown by his education and business experience, yet he was blessed to be born into a wealthy and politically powerful family; he has improved his status to that of a screwed-up president with significant and powerful allies in the sectors of government and industry. With the help of these individuals and groups, he has transformed the base of our government and economy into a powerful — yet negative (for the majority) — dictatorial oligarchy with numerous neo-fascist tendencies.

Does this make Bush a "grand strategist"? Well, maybe. Does it make him a good president and human being? Heck, no!

But "confusing"? Certainly not. Remember, to many historians, Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun, and Hannibal also were grand strategists. Fortunately, none of them were American presidents.