Although I believe that President George W. Bush was not half as bad as his main detractors say, I did and do have problems with several of his policies, especially with his foreign policy; his aggressive response to Muslim extremism was, I believe, the right one, taken at the right point in time. Afghanistan had to be invaded, and extremists had to realize that they would be under attack no matter where they were. 

On the other hand, his ideas about liberty and democracy and their ability to ‘transform’ countries in the Middle East should be dismissed by all serious foreign policy thinkers by now. The last seven to eight years have shown us that these principles are not a ‘cure all’ for this region. Instead, ‘democracy’ especially has brought extremists to power, not eradicated them.

In other words, although Bush was correct in so far that an aggressive approach to extremism was necessary his foreign policy lacked realism. A realism his father’s foreign policy did have.

During this year’s election campaign for president I thought that Senator John McCain would be best capable of defining a new foreign policy that would deal aggressively, violently if necessary, with the danger extremists pose to the West and other countries, while being realistic about America’s ability to ‘transform’ societies nonetheless. Obama, I feared, was too much of a dove to be considered a realist.

Only a few weeks after Barack Obama won the election, however, I am starting to warm up to him. He has surrounded himself by people like Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton - hawkish realists, in other words. They believe that using force is sometimes necessary, but they do not have high-minded dreams about America’s ability to significantly change the Middle East for the better in only a few years time. 

Obama seems to be drawing from two previous administrations with regards to foreign policy: Democratic President Bill Clinton’s and Republican George H.W. Bush’s.

George H.W. Bush, or Bush 41 as he is called these days, was not exactly a perfect president. He made mistakes. 

But he was a realist whose mistakes pale in comparison to his achievements. He made America stronger. Foreigners respected America’s might but trusted it would use force when absolutely necessary. His foreign policy was aimed at protecting America’s (immediate) interests first and foremost, not at trying to create a utopian world in which everyone would be happy and all would live in peace and prosperity. 

This is, to a very large degree, the kind of foreign policy America needs now, after eight years of George W. Bush (or Bush 43). Despite all his pandering to the American far left during the campaign season Obama too seems to realize this and is busily assembling a team that mirrors George H.W. Bush’s rather closely. 

Although the above is a positive development, Obama should be careful not to repeat Bush 43rd’s mistakes, however. As said, Bush made mistakes too. Obama should learn from Clinton and Bush 41 (and 43 for that matter) what he can, adopt policies and policy approaches that make sense, but he should not forget to correct mistakes made by his predecessors. 

As for the Bushes this means, for instance, that Obama would be wise to continue George W’s involvement in Africa. Bush 41 was not very active in Africa, seemingly not understanding that helping developing nations modernize is in America’s (immediate) interest. Unstable states can function as safe havens for extremists and terrorists. Poverty breeds both. If America truly wants to eradicate extremism it has to become more not less involved in a positive manner in, especially, Africa. 

Modernization is key. And modernization of third world countries, especially Muslim countries, is in America’s interest. We saw what happens back in 2001 when such countries are ignored. 

Additionally, the true danger of extremism was not well known during Bush 41’s administration. Instead, both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush thought they could use extremists in order to weaken the Soviet Union and other enemies without any backlash. Again, we saw how that turned out in 2001. And still today.

What Obama needs to do is the following: he needs to adopt a realist approach, like Clinton’s and like George H.W. Bush’s, but he needs to make sure that his foreign policy is for the 21st century, not for the early 1990s. He needs to realize that the world has changed considerably and his foreign policy has to reflect those changes. 

If he does, he may become a successful president, at least in this regard. If he does not, he may end up much like George W. Bush: scorned and ridiculed.