Bush's legacy

Remarkably, this clash has been sustained for 14 centuries since Islam's founding with an immense cost to innocent humanity. Bush's legacy, for me, should be judged by whether his administration - in the backdrop of spectacular 9-11 attacks - understood that the attacks were part of this age-old civilisational clash of Islam with the rest of humanity; and whether he took necessary measures to fight it.

His administration probably understood the conflict reasonably well, but failed to undertake decisive measures. This war of Islam against the rest of humanity can only be fought by exposing what the clash is all about. His touting the slogan that “Islam is peace” undermines the fight. His "war on terror" was a necessary component to neutralise the clash, but insufficient to kill it forever. Only by exposing Islam's design - based on its religious foundations - against the rest of humanity can this age-old menace to humanity be neutralised forever.

Understandably, the world today is held hostage by oil-producing Muslim states; this constraint prevents the taking of necessary actions, namely pointing to where truly lies the root of this global conflict. Working under this constraint, the Bush administration could, undoubtedly, do much less than what is needed to win this battle decisively. Under the circumstances, another President, Al Gore for example, in all likelihood, would have done much less.

This is a war that must be won against immense odds, fighting the huge ignorance of the global population. We have noticed the hypocrisy of Europeans: they overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for his naïve but goody-goody gestures towards Islam, while a great majority of them feel uncomfortable with Muslims living among them: their attitude towards Islam is hardening, becoming unfavourable.

In a world, not ready to take an oil-shock, creating an awareness of this unfavourable attitude towards Islam, will be crucial - probably the first step - towards defeating Islam's age-old war against humanity. Bush's war on terror, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - although failed to achieve short-term objectives - have undoubtedly played a central role in this vital "awareness creation" about Islam.

An unconditional clash against humanity, waged by few hundred impoverished Arabs under Prophet Mohammed's leadership, has sustained 14 centuries. And Islam has achieved much: today, Islam’s 1.4 billion volunteers push its civilisational clash forwards in one capacity or another. It shouldn't be difficult to understand the kind of vitality and resilience, Islam exudes into this battle.

It is not difficult either to understand the difficultly, the odds, that global non-Muslim humanity faces in this battle against such a staggering army of volunteers. So much of the world's vital resources are on Islam's side today, while its opponents are handicapped by restraints like international law and human rights, and so on, for which Islamists have nothing but contempt.

For a keen observer of Islamic history, who understands its theological foundations and cares for the immense sufferings it has caused to humanity, attempt at winning this battle decisively is much more noble than Bush administration's lapses in upholding international laws and the human rights of terrorists, who are hell-bent on, and take gleeful joy in, causing mass-murder of innocent men, women and children, inspired by a demented theological doctrine.

Of the reformed, low-risk terrorists released from Guantanamo, 61 of them have returned to the Jihadi trail for the mass-killing of innocent people. Harsher tactics may be essential to tackle this dreaded breed of mass-murderers, who deem dying in the hands of their perceived enemies most desirable, a martyrdom, which lands them in paradise.

It is a battle either side can win from here. Given the circumstances, the Bush administration made a reasonable attempt at neutralising this dreaded enemy. This battle, lasting 14 centuries, cannot be won overnight; it will take decades if not centuries. More real, determined, measures must come. It can be won only by following the trail of Bush administration's measures and strengthening the resolve further. Bush's message to his successor - that "with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great nation will never tire, never falter, and never fail" - is probably the least that will be needed.

Whether Bush's commendable, but insufficient, attempts at winning this war leads to sustained effective measures will determine the fate of this lasting civilisational clash of global expanse. We have to wait for decades to see the outcome. Bush is correct: only history can judge his legacy.

Harry Truman left office in 1953, to the relief of most Americans, with a miserable 32 per cent approval-rating while waging an unpopular war. Bush's departure has parallels to this. Yet in a decade, Truman was rated among nation's top ten presidents. A movie was made entitled, Give 'em Hell, Harry!; and Chicago group sang "America needs you, Harry Truman".

Truman's was a difficult, extraordinary, time in office; Bush's was worse. Bush leaves office in similar circumstances, too. Will Bush bounce back like Truman? It all remains to be seen.