Let's not start with any misconceptions, I am not a Bush fan. I think he was a fairly good president, but he also made many mistakes. As I wrote before, I think history will rate him as a fairly good president, but I think he could have been much better. To summarize in as brief a form as possible, he was never strong on domestic policy, yet wanted to make his mark there. He had some great ideas, tax cuts and social security reform, and some miserable ones, such as faith based initiatives (which still were basically welfare, just partly privatized). He also had a disturbing tendency to sign on to bad Democrat proposals, such as prescription coverage and education "reform". He was distracted from this by the need to focus on foreign affairs following 9/11, and that may be for the best. Though it kept him from reforming social security, it also kept him from doing any more harm with the "compassionate" half of "compassionate conservatism"*.

But the fact that Bush's eight years will be judged based almost entirely on foreign policy opens up an interesting question, how does Bush compare to our current administration?

Well, the left likes to say Bush "ruined our image" in the rest of the world. Of course they also called Reagan a "cowboy" who would cause World War III, so the conventional wisdom of the left is always suspect. Let us look at what really happened. Bush used the sympathy following 9/11 to gather support for action in Afghanistan. He then built a coalition to invade Iraq, working around obstructions form French and Russian government who were basically collaborating with Saddam. He even managed to work around Turkish opposition based on their worries about an autonomous Kurdish region**.

Bush did drop the ball on some foreign affairs issues. He kept North Korea isolated, but failed to apply enough pressure to make up for all the harm done by concessions during the Clinton era. And, losing support at home, he did not have the influence to apply pressure to Iran to choke off their nuclear ambitions. Nor did he, as far as we know, make any efforts to stir up internal opposition in Iran, which I have long thought would be the low cost route to regime change there.

On the other hand, many things the left criticizes were actually successes. By entertaining NATO membership for Georgia and other former Soviet satellites, he provided warning to Russia not to follow any expansionist plans, as did his announced missile defense systems in eastern Europe. The fact that Russia waited to assault Georgia until Bush was heading out the door shows how successful this policy was.

And how does Obama compare?

Obama has managed to appear both arrogant and weak in equal measures. If anyone "harmed our image" it has to be our current president.

First, he snubbed allies, and in really senseless ways, gaining him nothing. From his sending back of the Churchill bust, to his thoughtless gifts to the Prime Minister, to his letter to "President" Chirac, he has managed to alienate both the British and French. Granted, they are adult enough not to show their offense and gave him a warm reception on his tour, but it is clear they see him as a boorish child.

Second, he not only managed to sell out our allies in eastern Europe with his letter to Russia, but did so without making sure he would gain anything. In the end, he sold out our allies, and put the rest of our allies on notice he might do the same to them, without getting anything in return. And he also gave notice to Russia that they have a free hand in eastern Europe and the former soviet states.

Third, he reached out to Iran in a way that tells Iran we have no intention of stopping their nuclear ambitions. And, if that didn't make it clear enough, he followed up with a statement that they wouldn't even have to stop refining during "early phases" of the talks. In other words, he made it clear to Iran that they can enter into talks to stall any US action, giving them all the time they want to finish building their bombs. How nice to make explicit what was Iran's implicit plan once they found a compliant president.

Fourth, he told the world that missile defense systems were, basically, off the table. Oh, he said he would be doing some sort of cost-benefit analysis, but it was clear that he was telling everyone we were getting rid of missile defense systems. And, as when Carter signed the ABM treaties, the aggressor states cheered. In this case, North Korea threw out inspectors and started up the missile production line again, along with renewing test shots of her long range missile systems.

And throughout this whole time, not only has Obama been negotiating away our safety and that of our allies, but he has been running down the US as much as possible, telling anyone who will listen how deplorable has been our behavior and how ashamed he is of our history. Despite the claims of the left that this shows what a "good citizen" the US is, in reality the world takes this as a sign of weakness. I know it is hard for the left to comprehend, but those cheering crowds are not delighted at how "strong" Obama is, they are cheering at the sight of the former first power of the world abjectly grovelling for aid and getting nothing in return. It is not approval, but derision which fuels their excitement.

So, overall, which would you rather have? A president who acts, even if some nations oppose him, who watches out for national security first, and who cares more for safety than "world opinion", or one who would rather sell out our every interest before doing anything to give offense to another nation, whose confidence in his own eloquence drives him to enter into bad deals, often getting nothing in exchange for huge concessions, who will apologize for every sin, real or imagined, and projects an image of weakness and pathos to the world?

How you answer will tell you whether Bush or Obama is the better president in terms of international affairs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am going to ignore immigration as both a domestic and foreign policy question as every president in recent memory has dropped the ball on that one. From Reagan's ill considered amnesty through the inactivity and lack of enforcement from Clinton through Obama, the US has simply not had an immigration policy in recent years. Even if it had a policy, the local efforts to obstruct enforcement would make it almost impossible for a national policy to make much of a difference. Until we can get both state and national policies in accord we are unlikely to see any meaningful action on immigration.

** It is hard to fault Turkey, though their obstructions kept the US form fighting in Iraq as we initially wanted. There are many Kurdish independence movement sin Turkey, and an independent Kurdish state presents many frightening scenarios to the Turkish government. Nor is it a simple ethnic issue, as some Kurdish groups have clear political agendas inimical to representative government (though not all). So it is understandable that the Turks would oppose any effort to create anything resembling an independent Kurdish state. (See, lefties, we can understand the "nuances" of international affairs, we just don't bend over backwards to show sympathy at the expense of our own interests.)