evil’ speech two years later adding Iran to the
rogue countries.
President Bush is no simpleton causing amuse-
ment because of his lack of spontaneity in speech
and at times tongue-twisting phraseology. Many
Americans underrate their presidents as they did
Reagan. It is a healthy attitude even when wide of
the mark. A graduate of Yale and the Harvard
Business School, with commercial experience,
Bush’s hard drinking days were long behind him
as he embraced Christianity. His alliance with the
evangelical wing of the Church aroused liberal
concern and misgivings. His brash Texan manner,
love of the ranch, the very regularity of his life now
in a White House steeped in prayer conveyed a
narrowness of outlook that was discomforting for
some and inspirational to others. A ‘vision’ politi-
cian he followed his gut instincts, ready to lead
with his chin forward, but not without guile and
calculation. He expressed tolerance to religions
other than Christianity as long as he believes they
share ethical values; with so many people of
Mexican descent in his home state, he is also
mindful of ethnic and cultural diversity. Colin
Powell became the first African American secretary
of state and Condeleeza Rice, the national security
adviser, in 2005 became his successor. A
Republican at heart believing in meritocracy, in
the spirit of American enterprise, stern law and
order and in encouraging people to look after
themselves, Bush wants to reduce government in
most areas of life limiting the state’s responsibility
to provide the means to improve their own lives
especially through education. But hard political
realities required compromises. His sense of right-
eousness was at times hard to bear in the wider
world especially his brusque way of putting
America first, spurning international cooperation
when he judged it not to be in America’s interest.
His strength lay in reducing complex situations to
simple fundamentals. But this can become a
source of danger too if insufficient attention is
given to complex problems. In Iraq, he under-
estimated the difficulties of reconstruction and of
creating democratic government after the military
victory. He is also impatient of international
forums, which require constant adjustment to the
views of others. But allies could not be dispensed
with altogether, they were useful not only diplo-
matically and militarily, but helped to convince
opinion at home of the rightness of American
action. Of the major powers though, only Britain
was ultimately prepared to follow through.
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in 2004
saw their popularity plummet as difficulties in Iraq
and the Iraqi prisoner abuse dominated the media.
The new stance of American policy soon made
itself felt. Bush repudiated the Kyoto Treaty; the
US could not hope to fulfil the Kyoto Treaty
requirements on the environment, though the
main single contributor to pollution, without
harming the domestic economy. Bush refused to
sign up to the UN International Criminal Court,
to try cases against individuals anywhere in the
world. The Yugoslav human-rights abuses com-
mitted in former Yugoslavia had led to the setting
up of a special court to try the principal perpe-
trators but it is not a permanent court; the exist-
ing International Court at The Hague can only
hear cases between nations. In any case, the long-
drawn-out trial of Milosˇevic ́ did not inspire much
confidence. The new UN International Criminal
Court, however, is a permanent body of judges.
Most significant in 2001 was the unilateral ending
of the Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty by the
US which, during the Cold War, had provided a
deterrent against nuclear conflict. The Bush
administration wished to free its hands to pursue
efforts to provide an effective shield against
incoming missiles. Did these policies mark a
return to isolationism? In the twenty-first century
‘America first’ is no longer synonymous with
isolation. The experience of 9/11, alone, was
enough to dispel such illusions. The Bush admin-
istration sent the message that it would take firm
action not procrastinate.
One consequence of 9/11 was the reordering of
priorities, Afghanistan replaced Iraq as the first
‘rogue state’ that had to be dealt with. A rogue
state, according to the Bush doctrine, was a state
aiding and harbouring terrorists or threatening
the world with weapons of mass destruction. In
Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden had established
bases for al-Qaeda terrorists, Muslim fundamen-
talists dedicated to waging war against the US
1
THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ 929
