Outlook: The War President

When George W. Bush addresses the nation on Thursday at his second inauguration, he knows that history will ultimately judge his presidency on how he prosecutes what his administration has labeled "The Global War on Terror."

University of North Carolina historian Richard H. Kohn was online Wednesday, Jan. 19, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss this self-defined war president's recent actions and what he must do to if he is to leave office four years from now in the company of America's successful war presidents.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Greenbelt, Md.: You bring up a good point here about the ownership of this war. But I think there's a further step that should be taken.

This is not a "War on Terror," this is Bush's War. He wanted it, he broke the law to get it, and he (sickening as it sounds) enjoys it. A lot. He not only defines his presidency by it, he defines himself as a person by it. On the campaign trail, in his daily duties, on his own time. "La guerre c'est moi."

Do you believe that the failure of Bush's War, and the consequent decline of the American Empire, will be hung around his neck by historians in the future? Or will he get a pass on accountability as the presidents since Nixon (except Clinton) have?

Richard H. Kohn: Yes, and no pass!
RHK

_______________________

War and Peace: What do you make of this statement of President Bush's during the campaign:

"...The enemy declared war on us, and you just got to know nobody wants to be the "war President." I want to be the "peace President"...."

Sure seems like he wanted to be the "war president" to me.

Richard H. Kohn: It's been useful to him, and defined him I think for himself, but no one could wish such a thing on him or her self.
RHK

_______________________

Monterey, Calif.: There is a tremendous difference between this war and all others: at least 95 percent of the so called "War on Terrorism" has never happened, and never will.

It is a paranoid delusion by men in power who are particularly prone to such projection of their own fears and see the world (but never themselves) as a dangerous, dark, and now evil place.

I wonder what history will have to say about that?

Please resist the need to remind me that there are real terrorists out there. To quote Mr. Bush: "I know that."

What I am talking about here is the explanation for all the false alarms, the boogy man detainees, as well as tremendous incentive to be at war for political and economic reasons.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that the United States has done a beautiful job of creating a self fulfilling prophesy: there is no doubt much more of an organized global opposition against us than there was three years ago.

Richard H. Kohn: A lot of what you say is true but never underestimate the confusion and incompetence of government, which after all is a collection of agencies with overlapping responsibilities and often limited time and information.
RHK

_______________________

Franklin, Tenn.: Proposals to expand the Army must first clear the not inconsiderable obstacle of recruiting. In past wars, Americans flocked to the flag after the first fight, but after 9/11 instead of encouraging enlistments the Bush Administration told us to go shopping. Did the President blow the opportunity to expand the force to meet the job? Is there any chance that we can recruit enough qualified troops for the MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) most needed, light infantryman, in the present climate, absent an appeal by the President?

Richard H. Kohn: Yes he did, but at the beginning we realized that this "war" wouldn't be fought so much with military force as diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, international cooperation, and the like. In the end, we'll probably be able to induce enough soldiers to join, the regulars at least,but it'll be expensive.
RHK

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What are your thoughts on how history judges the unintended consequences of leader's actions? For instance, the victors of World War I are heralded for their military victory but criticized for their diplomatic errors in setting the stage for World War II. A recent CIA document forecasts a strong growth in militant resistance throughout the Middle East, much of it resulting from our military presence in Iraq. If our presence in Iraq brings democracy to Iraq but creates new problems, how do you see history balancing consequences with intentions (keeping in mind, of course, we do not yet know if all intentions and consequences will end positively or negatively, yet, assuming there will be bits of both, the question remains)?

Richard H. Kohn: Historians will judge carefully, with all the subtlety and in recognition of the ambiguities, that you suggest in your question. And the interpretations will evolve as events occur and we gain greater distance from the events. The unintended consequences, still unfolding, with be prominent for sure. We historians love irony!
RHK

_______________________

Seward, Neb.: Don't you think that this guy likes being seen as the "war president" just a little too much. My sense is that if he did not have a war, he would find a way to invent one.

Richard H. Kohn: Yes he does, but he isn't that inventive. The US was attacked on 9/11 with enormous, grievous consequences, and a very, very, very strong response was necessary and appropriate. Some of this administration's responses, however, have been failures to date, unproductive, or counter productive.
RHK

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: I've read that war presidents win re-election by significant margins, so "self-defined" fits Bush in this way. Is there a clear way of identifying "war presidents", and has this distinction been politically manipulated in the past?

Thanks.

Richard H. Kohn: It's very hard to define "war presidents" and it has been manipulated in the past. They don't win by "significant" margins, if we have a definition of "significant." Truman and Johnson were thrown out of office. Carter, too. Nixon self-destructed and over the war. Wilson and Roosevelt ran in 1916 and 1940 on keeing us out of war. Lincoln squeaked in. Polk got one term. It's pretty situation dependent.
RHK

_______________________

Sims, N.C.: The hearings for the cabinet has showed us how the press worships everything Bush. Sen. Boxer was crucified by the media yesterday for asking Rice to explain her own words about WMDS. Mrs. Rice suggested that Sen. Boxer was somehow out of line to question her integrity. The president has had forces in Iran for the last year. To put it simply this administaration operates above the law. It doesnt matter what Bush does or lie about, the congress and the media will just ignore it. Anyone who questions the adminstration will be destroyed by a smear campaign coordinated by the White House and carried out by the media. Hopefully one day all of the morally pious people will have to answer for the death and destrution they have caused. Likely, this will never happen. Our democracy is definately broken.

Richard H. Kohn: Congress and the media don't ignore the lies; they just aren't very effective in combatting them.
RHK

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Comment:

While Dr. Kohn blames President Bush for his failure to enlist our traditional allies in the war on terror, I would note that our allies have done little in words or deeds to demonstrate their willingness to make the needed sacrifices. Consider their record in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan, and the enforcement of sanctions against Saddam Hussein before the Second Gulf War. In all of these examples our European allies and the United Nations have shown themselves to be cowards and hypocrites. They've been content to sit on the sidelines and throw stones at the United States—the only nation willing to pay the cost in blood and treasure in order to bring justice to the oppressed people of the world.

Second, Kohn labels as "utopian" America's "ancient dream to establish liberty, political democracy, and market capitalism." But in his analysis, Kohn predicts that history will judge Bush by how well he performs in separating radical Islam from its host populations, and how well Bush does in preventing the spread of nuclear, -don't forget chemical], and biological weapons. I agree that these are dearly desirable goals. However, they are also very long-term, utopian dreams -- ask the Israelis.

Kohn ends his piece by urging the President to stay focused on the "Global War on Terror." (Earlier in the article, Kohn criticized Bush for erroneously identifying terrorism as the enemy instead of radical Islamic terrorists.) Surely everyone agrees that Iraq is now a hotbed of radical Islamic terrorism. Indeed, Bush is already focused on these very bad guys.

In my humble opinion, the "bottom line" is this: What will it take for the Europeans to become "engaged," as is the United States, in promoting justice in a world beset by terrorists bent on destroying western society?

Richard H. Kohn: I don't think anything I said is inconsistent. No disagreement with the criticism of many of our so-called allies.
RHK

_______________________

Youngstown, Ohio: Don't you feel president Bush should put all America first in making decisions about continuing war in Iraq or creating war in other parts of the world?

His declaration of war against Saadam and Iraq was definitely a personal vendetta and it cost America and Americans dearly. He lied to get approval from Congress to declare war and ignored the primary concern for war against Afghanistan and Bin Laden.

His personal vendetta has cost us 1,300 troops dead and 10,000 wounded. ALL FOR NAUGHT.

Richard H. Kohn: Yes, but one cannot defend the US or see to its interests in isolation. The war was a mistake but we have now to deal with its consequences.
RHK

_______________________

York, U.K.: Please define "sucessful." The overwhelming military might of the USA -- winning does not always relate to success -- should surely be balanced with the integrity and honesty under which decisions for a war with Iraq were made. Post war findings regarding the reasons for hostilities have proved them seriously flawed at best and for an overwhelming majority of the non-U.S. Western World dishonest and self serving. The Muslim and Third World nations see his actions as an incitement to further violence. Bush may have won the battle but the war is another matter altogether.

Richard H. Kohn: I agree. Success would be protecting the United States from catastrophic attack, or minimizing the damage, and then over the long term beating back murderous, radical Islamic terrorists until they are a tiny, marginalized, criminal element with little or no appeal or adherents in their own world. And the threat in a major way, and successful operations, become extremely rare. They become something of a minor criminal threat inside their own societies and to the developed world.
RHK

_______________________

Anonymous: When questioned about specific failures of the U.S. in Iraq, the common reaction of the administration, including Rice in her confirmation hearing, is to remind everyone that we are "at war" with all the uncertainty that entails. I never hear any of the press corps call on Bush and his cadre to account for his declaration on that carrier nearly two years ago, that major combat operations were over. I watch as closely as I can, but haven't seen anyone try to call them on this contradiction. Why do we let them turn a gaffe into a convenient excuse at every turn?

Richard H. Kohn: I do think that the language has been corrupted; the administration declares this a "war" and nobody questions it. My article had a very definite if implied subtext: Mr. President, you've declared that this is a war and you're a war president, but you're not acting that way. You can't have it both ways. Either it is a war and your leadership has been quite deficient; or it isn't, and you're playing it that way for a variety of reasons. My guess is that it's quite a large dose of both.
RHK

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Why is it harder for the USA to garner global support in our war against terrorism, or Islamic extremism? In the past decades, it seems we had greater support to attempt to contain communism. Your article does not address this issue.

Richard H. Kohn: Because we haven't tried very hard, or very effectively. During the Cold War, over years we created the institutions and worked hard at it--and saw it as a priority--and it was a secular and political/ideological struggle more than cultural or religious division.
RHK

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Yes I live in tinsel town, and yes I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But I still think it is extremely ironic that the guy who dodged the war in Vietnam by serving in the National Guard has the nerve to ship out 150,000 troops to Iraq and has created a whole new generation of soldiers who will tell themselves "yea, we were lied to about why we went there."

Richard H. Kohn: There is always irony in war, to go with the tragedy. Apparently not a lot of the soldiers in Iraq are feeling lied to--they seem to accept the mission and feel they are doing something important and worthwhile. Not universal, of course
RHK

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Does the president pride himself on any other initiatives/policies besides those having to do with war? Is that the only legacy he wants to leave?

Richard H. Kohn: No, I think he's enormously proud of his tax cuts and his improving the Republican margin in the Congress, not to speak of his re-election. Probably his methods, too: the "un-Clinton."
RHK

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: As the mother of two reserve citizen soldiers, I would like to know why and how the Bush administration can continue to call the failure to find WMD's in Iraq an "intelligence failure." I have no security clearance, but do have a college degree that relates to intelligence matters. I found plenty of conflicting information BEFORE the war -- many reputable intelligence (including many CIA, DIA people did not believe the President) professionals knew from sanctions, inspections and spys -- as well as German intelligence, French and others -- that chance of any WMD's or programmes surviving the above was slim. Many regular soldiers know most stockpiles were destroyed in Gulf War I.

AGAIN, WHY? How does this adminstration reconcile these obvious fallacies? Not one word from the White House, not one editorial in any paper anywhere talked of the need to go into Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons before the war or even before 9/11. What gives? When is Bush and the Republican party admit they lied their way into this war of choice? Military families do not support the President or his policies in the numbers Bushies claim- only ones who DO support him are asked their for their opinion, I promise.

Richard H. Kohn: Presidents and politicians rarely if ever admit to lying or even to spinning, and hardly ever to mistakes, for obvious reasons. They sold the war as best they could; they decided on it as early as the spring of '02. Not rocket science, if one was listening to what they were saying. And doing.
RHK

_______________________

Somerset, N.J.: I think it's premature to say that Bush will be judged on what he says he wants to be judged on. Of course, I'm speculating as well, but, looking backwards, I see the Bush years as inaugurating a period of decline of U.S. power vis a vis that of the rest of the world. Bush has made what I think of as disastrous choices which have left us with little financial, intangible, and military capital left to spend. Our infrastructure, including "human infrastructure" programs like social security will be left to wither away. The bipartisan consensus on foreign policy and the environment has been ruined.

We are weaker now than we were four years ago; we will be weaker still in another four years. That's what I, as a historian, will be arguing about in the future, whether this weakening was inevitable or was cause specifically by Bush policies.

Richard H. Kohn: I think it's too early to predict the decline of American power as I don't think these things occur in some consistent, linear way--but I do agree with your speculation, and believe part of it was inevitable and a larger part due to Bush policies. Our government and our political system arent' well arranged for hegemonic power or even empire, and so much of our power is "soft" power emanating from the private sector (although aided greatly by government). I think we are in essential agreement.
Dick K.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: You make a very good point by pointing out that President Bush is a war President but doesn't wish to act as such. Unfortunately, he tried to do the same thing during the election -- claim the nation should not change Presidents in the middle of a war while insisting the war was "mission accomplished" and coming to an end -- and he got away with it. Why should we expect him to change now?

Richard H. Kohn: Hope springs eternal; it means SO much; and I do think he wishes to be a successful president, not just by his own definition but before the bar of history. He has grown in office, and now safely re-elected, he may be more flexible. He's an odd combination of arrogance, privilege, and insecurity--not atypical for people who rediscovered themselves, in the way that he did, in mid-life.
RHK

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Could you comment on Seymour Hersh's report that the U.S. may be planning a bombing campaign on Iran?

Richard H. Kohn: I haven't seen Hersh's report. He's an extraordinary reporter, but remember that our military establishment plans for a lot of things--is reponsible for doing so--and not always for pre-emptive or preventive operations. We've come a long way since President Wilson discovered that the General Staff was planning such things before our entry in WWI--and ordered the planning to cease!
RHK

_______________________

Cincinnati, Ohio: With the second term about to start and Pres. Bush having said that he is willing to be judged by history, lets go ahead and get a head start and "judge" the first term.

My personal view is that history will judge him to be a very flawed President, more reviled than Nixon and Johnson, and more remembered for his failed "war on Terror and resulting consequences" than "no child left behind", much as Nixon is remembered for Watergate and not his China policy, and Johnson is remembered for Vietnam and not the Great Society programs.

While some may think of President Bush as the "Teflon President. (I certainly do) we should remember the "Teflon Don" and how history eventually caught up with him.

Sure he won the election and 51 percent of voters selected him, but the press should really start to quantify all of his judgment errors. The news is not an opinion poll where they are obligated to balance good and bad stories. The press should devote significant time and space to list the failed judgments and the consequences. Just the flawed cabinet choices since the election would fill five pages.

As our President has stated -- "bring it on." OK. Lets have historians "bring it on" now when it might have some effect on the next four years, instead of writing books in 10 years saying what a failed President, George W. Bush was.

Richard H. Kohn: We historians are starting, but don't forget that we rely on evidence, and the secrecy and misdirection of this administration is notable. The press does point out the inconsistencies and untruths, but its job is reporting, not judging.
RHK

_______________________