“If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.” -- George W. Bush, October 12, 2000

As the Republican National Convention embraces the Bush Administration, it is important to reflect on the President’s foreign policy legacy – one of the most disastrous in the history of the United States.

President Bush inherited a peerless military and global respect for the U.S. and its values created over six decades of US engagement in the world. After 9/11, the President had an opportunity to unite the world behind us, eliminate the threat from Al Qaeda, and create a new security framework for the 21st century. Rather than finish the job against those who attacked us, President Bush squandered that chance by launching an ill-advised war in Iraq. Today Al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Meanwhile, 4,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq and the average American family of four has absorbed a cost of $16,500 to pay for a war that has destabilized the Middle East, empowered Iran and not made us safer.

The Bush policies have overstretched our military and crippled our ability to respond to unforeseen threats. They have put an incredible strain on our fighting men and women, undermining overall operational readiness and making it difficult to deal with new threats that might arise. The medical care, particularly mental healthcare, for returning troops has ranged from inadequate to disgraceful and repeated deployments have created enormous burdens for military families. It will take years to repair this damage and get the military back to where it needs to be.

The President has claimed that nuclear proliferation in the hands of our enemies is the greatest danger facing our country. And yet under his watch Iran has gone from zero to 4,000 centrifuges; North Korea has tested a nuclear device and dramatically expanded its arsenal; and our deteriorating relationship with Russia has undermined proliferation agreements.

The President’s policies have undermined our most important alliances and damaged our credibility around the world. That lack of credibility has real consequences, making it more difficult to get our allies to stand with us on key issues such as sending more NATO troops to Afghanistan or standing up to Russian expansionism in Georgia.

Finally, contrary to President Bush’s lofty rhetoric on democracy promotion, his tenure has seen the rollback of democracy around the world as autocratic states such as China and Russia have gotten stronger, while President Bush has abandoned his initial support for democracy promotion in the Middle East.

There is no doubt that the last eight years have been a disaster for American foreign policy, squandering sixty years of American prestige and principle.

The Bush Administration has Failed to Focus on the Greatest Danger in the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." – President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

America’s 16 intelligence agencies say that al Qaeda is growing stronger and that the threat emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is the single greatest danger to American security. The 2006 and 2007 National Intelligence Estimates both concluded that al Qaeda “will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad.” The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism also “cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.” The GAO, in concert with the unclassified 2007 NIE and State and embassy documents, Defense, State and other officials found that “al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States…” and “…is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place…” [NIE, 4/06. NIE, 7/07. NY Times, 9/24/06. GAO, 4/08]

Rather than focus on the greatest threat, the Bush administration has consistently diverted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq. The New York Times reports that “the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.” According to current and former military and intelligence officials the war in Iraq has consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the fight against al Qaeda. Intelligence officials report that by 2006, the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. “You had a very finite number” of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. “Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.” In fact, “when American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.” [NY Times, 6/30/08]

Military officials have also warned about how Iraq is hurting the fight in Afghanistan. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen has asserted that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to help control an increasingly active insurgency but, due to the war in Iraq, insufficient forces are available for such action. “I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq,” Mullen said. “Afghanistan remains an economy of force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there. We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint, but we don't have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan.” In the most blunt assessment of all, General Dan McNeill, former NATO commander for Afghanistan, called the regional mission an “under-resourced war.” [Washington Post, 7/2/08. New York Times, 7/2/08]

Bush Administration neglect has thrown the Afghanistan-Pakistan region into misery. The state of affairs in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is grim. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in a harrowing assessment, said that Afghanistan “is in misery,” a result of poor coordination, inept management, and a dearth of resources and troops. Indeed, violence is up 40% along the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and the Taliban have grown so brazen that they now mount attacks on US-ISAF military bases. In northwest Pakistan, Al Qaeda has reconstituted and is now capable of “blending into Western society” to plot attacks against the US and its allies, and Taliban forces are resurgent, having carried out bombings that killed 200 people in the last two weeks of August alone. [General Barry McCaffrey, 7/30/08. LA Times, 6/25/08. NY Times, 8/19/08. NY Times, 8/13/08. AP, 8/29/08]

The War in Iraq has Made the US Less Secure

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” - President Bush, 5/1/03

The costs of the Iraq War both in terms of blood and treasure have been tremendous. More than 4,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq and another 30,000 have been wounded. Already more than $600 billion has been allocated in direct costs and the costs to the U.S. economy already exceed $1 trillion. Five and a half years after the start of the war, 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq. All of this after the Bush administration promised us that we would be greeted as liberators and that the war would cost less than $50 billion. [Brookings Institution, 8/21/08. Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 2/28/2008. CBS News, 11/15/02]

Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of the war in Iraq. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and replacing those governments with security vacuums, the United States allowed Iran to dramatically expand its regional influence. As Ray Takeyh explained, “Iran now lies at the center of the Middle East's major problems -- from the civil wars unfolding in Iraq and Lebanon to the security challenge of the Persian Gulf -- and it is hard to imagine any of them being resolved without Tehran's cooperation.” Moreover, many of the Shi’a political groups, whom the U.S. empowered in Iraq, have deep ties to Iran, including the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which represents one of the two largest Shi’a political movements in Iraq, was originally formed in Iran. [Ray Takeyh, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007. Rand Beers, Testimony Before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 2/28/08]

The Iraq War has further destabilized the Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in sectarian fighting. More than 4 million Iraq have been displaced, including 2 million refugees, most of whom have fled to Syria and Jordan threatening the stability of those countries. The war has roped in regional players with Turkey briefly entering Northern Iraq in late 2007 to fight the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Iran playing an active role in arming and supporting various militias, and Saudi Arabia working to counter Iranian influence by funding Sunni groups. [New England Journal of Medicine, 1/31/08. Financial Times, 1/10/2008. Brookings Institution, 8/21/08. UNHCR]

Our Military is Overstretched and Misused

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. Not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." – Donald Rumsfeld, 12/04/04

Army Chief of Staff: Iraq is hurting the Army's ability to sustain itself and plan for future contingencies. Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, stated that "The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future." [AP, 2/26/08 ]

Former Army Vice Chief of Staff says the Iraq War poses "significant risk" to all-volunteer army, as the army can't absorb anymore. Gen. Richard A. Cody, who recently retired as the Army's Vice Chief of Staff told Congress that the "heavy deployments are inflicting 'incredible stress' on soldiers and families and that they pose 'a significant risk' to the nation's all-volunteer military. 'When the five-brigade surge went in, that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army,' Cody testified. 'Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families, testing the resolve of our all-volunteer force like never before.'" [Washington Post, 4/2/08. NYT, 4/6/08 ]

Multiple deployments are taking a heavy psychological and physical toll on our troops. "More than a quarter of U.S. soldiers on their third or fourth tours in Iraq suffer mental health problems partly because troops are not getting enough time at home between deployments, the Army said. 'Soldiers are not resetting entirely before they get back into theater,' said Lt. Col. Paul Bliese, who led the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team survey for 2007." [Reuters, 3/06/08 ]

It will take years for our military to rebuild. "It will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand." "The combat readiness of the total Army (active units, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve) is in tatters. The simple fact is that the United States currently does not have enough troops who are ready and available for potential contingency missions in places like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or anywhere else" [Lawrence Korb, Testimony Before House Armed Services Committee, 7/27/07. Washington Post, 3/19/07]

Nuclear Proliferation has Continued Unabated

“The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination.” – President Bush, 9/17/02

The Bush administration has stubbornly refused to engage in tough diplomacy as under its watch Iran’s uranium enrichment program has gone from zero to 4,000 centrifuges. Despite bipartisan calls from the Iraq Study Group, former Bush administration officials, and progressives, the administration has refused to engage Iran. Instead it has stubbornly continued a failed policy that has not worked for the past five years. As a result, Iran’s uranium enrichment program has continued to progress and it has gone from zero to 4,000 of the centrifuges processing enriched uranium. [Washington Post, 8/29/08. American Prospect, 6/25/08.]

Under the Bush administration’s watch North Korea tested a nuclear device and has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal. Rather than pursue the Clinton administration policy of engaging directly with North Korea – a policy that was working – the Bush administration took a much harder line. Since then North Korea has developed enough material for approximately 10 nuclear bombs and even tested a device in late 2006. After six years of failure the Bush administration returned to the Clinton policy and is now offering economic incentives in exchange for North Korea dismantling its program. [Washington Post, 10/9/06. LA Times, 8/27/08]

Our deteriorating relationship with Russia is threatening to undermine cooperation on nuclear proliferation issues. “But one potential casualty that causes special worry for some analysts is the suspension of cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and other arms control efforts. The Wall Street Journal reported on August 23, the Bush administration's ‘landmark nuclear-cooperation agreement’ with Moscow could be derailed following Russia's moves in Georgia. The deal, which the White House had hoped to finalize in September, aimed to increase U.S.-Russia cooperation on peaceful nuclear technology. But as one U.S. official told the paper, nuclear deals are ‘no longer business as usual.’ The Financial Times reported on August 25 that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to call on President Bush to recall the civil nuclear deal with Russia from Congress. ‘At this point, it's dead,’ a congressional staffer told the paper.” [Council on Foreign Relations, 8/26/08. Wall Street Journal, 8/23/08. Financial Times, 8/25/08]

Our Credibility with Our Allies is Weakened

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” – President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

Global respect for the United States is evaporating, even among our closest allies. Only 30 percent of Germans now have a positive view of the United States, down from 78 percent before Bush took office in January 2001. In Turkey, a Muslim democracy and NATO ally, only 9 percent now have a favorable view, down from 52 percent in late 2001. Most alarming is that just 51 percent of Britons – our partner in Iraq and our most reliable ally - now hold favorable views of the United States, down from 75 percent before the Iraq invasion. [IHT, 6/27/07. Pew Global Attitudes Project, 6/27/07. NY Times, 2/07/08]

Our diminished prestige is hurting our ability to deal with major crises such as Georgia and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we need a greater military commitment from our NATO allies to help stabilize the country and prevent the reemergence of a terrorist haven. Yet, public opinion in Europe has conflated the necessary war in Afghanistan with the unnecessary war in Iraq. The whole venture is now so unpopular, and the domestic political cost of providing more troops for Afghanistan has become so high, that it has created a major impediment in getting the support we need for the mission. Meanwhile, the fraying of the NATO alliance also weakened the response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. As Jamie Rubin explained, “Let's remember it was Chancellor Merkel of Germany who became the power broker when leaders at the NATO summit debated the subject of Georgia this spring. The United States, which has traditionally led NATO on such subjects, failed to push through a so-called Membership Action Plan for Georgia. That failure, as much as anything, gave Moscow a crucial signal that the West could not muster a serious response should it crack down on its troublesome neighbor.” [NY Times, 2/07/08. Huffington Post, 8/13/08]

Our image in the Muslim world is hurting our ability to fight Al Qaeda. In countries across the Muslim world from Pakistan to Morocco our image is so tainted that local politicians who work closely with the United States are viewed with suspicion or simply discredited, making it far more difficult for us to win the ideological struggle with Al Qaeda. [Rand Beers, Testimony Before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 2/28/08.]

Democracy Around the World Has Suffered

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. – President Bush Second Inaugural Address, 1/20/05

2007 was a year “marked by a global setback” for the advance of freedom and democracy. Across the world, in countries like China, Russia, Egypt, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, freedom and democracy are in distress. According to Freedom House’s 2008 report on the state of global freedom, the “world’s most important autocracies have engaged in what has been called a pushback against democracy promotion,” using the policies of the Bush administration as a rationale to crackdown on their own troublesome advocates for democratic reform. [Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2008]

Where President Bush sought to bring democracy through his own persona and personal relationships, freedoms have disintegrated and instability reigns. “More than many of his predecessors, President Bush has invested heavily in trying to forge a strong bond with key foreign leaders. But as his term winds down, new crises in Georgia and Pakistan are underscoring the limits of Bush's personal diplomacy, as the president is receiving criticism for overpersonalizing relations with Putin, the Russian prime minister, and with Pervez Musharraf, who resigned as Pakistan's president last week” Today, a revanchist Russia has curtailed freedoms and threatens its democratic neighbors, while in Pakistan, the collapse of military rule, supported by the Bush Administration, has introduced political strife, and a new wave of terrorist attacks. [Washington Post, 8/27/08. Freedom House, June 2007. The Guardian, 8/22/08]

In the Middle East, the advance of democracy has faltered. Despite President Bush’s pronouncement of a “forward strategy of freedom” for the Middle East, today, in places like Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon the forces of democracy and moderation are in retreat, and intemperate, authoritarian, even extremist rule is at an apex. In Iraq, the US and the Iraqi government have failed to translate security improvements into political reconciliation, and ethno-sectarian cleavages continue to fester. Egypt’s government continues to crackdown on reformers and dissidents, and in Lebanon, where 2005’s Cedar revolution is but a memory, Hezbollah “stands unquestioned as the single most powerful force” in the country. And finally, Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his conservative, anti-western allies, have been newly strengthened by the Supreme Leader’s endorsement of Ahmadinejad’s leadership. [President George W. Bush, 2/04/04. NSN, 8/21/08. AP, 8/03/08. Washington Post, 5/18/08. AP, 8/24/08]