Ask almost anyone in the United States today: “What do you think the legacy of George W. Bush will be?” They will likely answer: “He declared an unjust, pre-emptive war against Iraq, and furthermore, he lied to us when he claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction!”
I wasn’t present when Bush’s aides made the case for the war in Iraq, but can you imagine anyone growing up in Barbara Bush’s household and telling a lie? Once, maybe, as a six-year-old, but that would be it. Can you imagine Laura Bush remaining married for one second after knowing, or even thinking, that her husband had lied to the American people? I’ve never met President Bush, but I believe the man is congenitally incapable of lying.
People will debate whether the war in Iraq was just or unjust for the rest of time. Our intelligence about Iraq was not as good as it should have been, but the blame for shortcomings in our intelligence is shared with democrats and liberals, especially actions by Senator Frank Church’s Committee in the late seventies (at the time, The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) which sharply curtailed US intelligence gathering through one of its best sources, human intelligence … spies, including those who might otherwise have been inside the Hussein inner circle before 2002.
Many of Bush’s friends and, possibly, even his father, were opposed to the war in Iraq (though the elder Bush never gave his son advice while president, but wished him the best for the undertaking in Iraq). The justness of that war relied initially upon the fact that the US was threatened by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (more likely, Israel was threatened, but some would argue that that was one and the same); such weapons include, of course, chemical, biological, and radiation, in addition to nuclear. Hussein not only had such weapons (chemical, especially), but he had used them on his own people .... Kurds, quasi US allies in fact, in a1988 attack on the city of Halabja …. gas attacks using a mixture of sarin, mustard gas and tabun, possibly among others that resulted in horrible deaths for more innocent people in one ghastly genocidal act than the number of Americans who died on 9/11. The argument that Hussein might have been on the path toward acquiring nuclear weapons remains far from proven, however, and may never be answered satisfactorily.
Bush’s case for attacking Iraq may have been at least as strong as President Obama’s rationale for supporting NATO in launching a pre-emptive attack on Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Years from now, however, as people begin to look back at the G. W. Bush era he may become better known for having been the first head of state to make a pre-emptive strike against HIV/AIDS. This “enemy” was killing almost 2 million people per year worldwide, with about 60% in Africa. Certainly in part because of Bush’s (and the US Congress’) efforts, the number of people infected with the HIV virus peaked in 2009 at around 33 million when it began, hopefully, its decline to zero. Experts believe that if international and domestic spending levels can be maintained at the desired level through 2015, this will break the back of this disease and its total elimination may be in sight.
Scientific advancements are being made every day. Early criticism focused on the large amounts of money being spent on education and prevention rather than treating the sick. As heartless as it may sound, prevention was simply a vastly better use of the funds in the early days, helping millions to avoid the disease instead of helping thousands infected with the disease (a moral dilemma which, in retrospect, was probably the best decision for mankind as a whole by limiting the spread of the disease). Today, however, the same medicine used to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is also used to treat those with the disease, and the cost per person of treatment is dropping steadily.
Bush’s bill allocated nearly $40 billion specifically to eradicate HIV/AIDS. This sum is being spent over five years ending in 2013, or $8 billion per year, “the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history” according to the White House press release at the time. This is more than three quarters of the total amount of foreign assistance needed for the HIV/AIDS eradication program worldwide. According to the infectious disease publication, Lancet, a peak of $22 billion (with half from foreign assistance programs and half from domestic sources in the countries receiving assistance) will be needed in 2015 to prevent and treat the disease. After 2015, as fewer people contract AIDS and treatment costs trend downward, the disease will begin its disappearing act.
I note that on the State Department website for PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, there is no mention of George W. Bush. A casual reading of the site could lead one to believe that PEPFAR was an initiative of the Obama Administration.
By 2025, the name George W. Bush may re-emerge in a different light. This man, who never sought credit and wasted no time burnishing his image, may be heralded as the president who gave the combined population of 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq a chance for freedom while, at the same time, led the way to eliminating HIV/AIDS.
Now that would be both just and honest.
