When I took office in 2001, it seemed that the best way to pursue that policy was to contain Saddam and push for tougher sanctions. The hope was that if we pressured the regime hard enough, it would change. On September 11, 2001, the world changed instead. Al Qaeda terrorists operating out of Afghanistan killed nearly three thousand people on American soil. In the ensuing months, we received a constant stream of chilling intelligence that the terrorists wanted to attack the United States again, this time on a grander scale—including with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Intelligence agencies around the world believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, as well as a nuclear weapons program. One of our greatest fears was that Saddam would share those capabilities with terrorists. We knew that Saddam had paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, used chemical weapons on his own people, invaded two of his neighbors, regularly fired on American planes patrolling the no-fly zone, and remained a sworn enemy of the United States. In short, after the horror of September 11 and the threats we were receiving, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with. Beginning in early 2002, I mounted a sustained diplomatic campaign, backed up by the threat of military force, to convince Saddam to comply with his international obligations. I was not trying “to finish what my father had begun,” as some have suggested. My motivation was to protect the United States of America, as I had sworn an oath to do.
I thought about my father’s leadership in the Gulf War. Like Dad, I went to the UN Security Council to increase international pressure on Saddam. By that time, the UN Security Council had already passed sixteen resolutions demanding, among other things, that Saddam disclose, disarm, and account for his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Saddam had defied every one of those resolutions. In November 2002, I worked with leaders around the world to pass a unanimous seventeenth resolution that declared Iraq to be in “material breach” of the earlier resolutions but afforded Saddam a “final opportunity to comply” with his obligations or else face “serious consequences.” In addition to conducting diplomacy at the UN, my administration assembled a large coalition of like-minded nations to put pressure on Saddam. Like Dad, I went to Congress, where both houses delivered bipartisan votes for a resolution authorizing me to take military action to enforce the UN resolutions and defend the country against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The Senate passed the war authorization resolution by a vote of 77–23, and the House passed it 296–133. (Interestingly, some of the same Senators who spent the 1990s running away from their vote against the Gulf War spent the 2000s running away from their vote for the Iraq War.) I also spoke out against Saddam’s terrible violations of human dignity and urged our citizens and our allies to support our efforts against Saddam as a matter of human rights. And like Dad, I worked closely with our military commanders to assemble a plan to accomplish our objective—in this case, removing Saddam’s regime from power in Baghdad—decisively and with minimal loss of innocent life if our diplomatic efforts should fail.
Unfortunately, for the second time in two decades, Saddam Hussein defied the United States, our allies, and the United Nations. As it became increasingly clear that military force might be the only option to address the threat from Iraq, I sent intelligence briefers to update Dad on the situation. (I also sent them to brief former President Clinton.) I never asked Dad what I should do. We both knew that this was a decision that only the President can make. We did talk about the issue, however. Over Christmas 2002 at Camp David, I gave Dad an update on our strategy.
“You know how tough war is, son, and you’ve got to try everything you can to avoid war,” he said. “But if the man won’t comply, you don’t have any other choice.”
In early 2003, Saddam briefly allowed weapons inspectors into the country, but he would not give them the access they needed to verify that he had complied with his obligations to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Remembering Dad’s pledge to “go the extra mile for peace” in 1991, I made one last diplomatic effort to give Saddam a way out. My administration spoke to leaders in the Middle East about taking Saddam into exile. It was clear that he had no intention of leaving. On March 17, 2003, I gave him a final forty-eight hours to leave the country. Again, he refused. Time and again, Saddam Hussein could have chosen peace. Instead, he chose war.
On March 19, 2003, I gave the order to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom. Later that morning, I wrote a letter to Dad. “I know I have taken the right action and do pray few will lose life,” I wrote. “Iraq will be free, the world will be safer. The emotion of the moment has passed and now I wait word on the covert action that is taking place. I know what you went through.”
A few hours later, he replied, “Your handwritten note, just received, touched my heart. You are doing the right thing…. Remember Robin’s words, ‘I love you more than tongue can tell.’ Well, I do.”
The military operation, which had support from more than thirty-five nations, was a rapid success. Within a month, our forces had liberated Baghdad and overthrown Saddam’s regime. We worked with a diverse group of allies and Iraqi leaders to meet our objective: a free and representative Iraqi government that would replace Saddam’s brutal tyranny, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and an ally in the war on terror. For a variety of reasons, the mission proved to be more difficult than we expected. First, we never found the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that intelligence agencies around the world believed that Saddam had. (We did, however, find evidence that he still had the capacity to make chemical and biological weapons and that he intended to restart his nuclear program after the sanctions were lifted.)
Second, after the rapid and successful liberation of Iraq, a violent insurgency broke out. The insurgents were fueled in part by internal ethnic strife that Saddam had cultivated for decades and in part by Iran and Syria, both of which had incentives to meddle in Iraq as a way to prevent the development of a democracy that would be an ally of the free world. The most dangerous and unexpected force behind the insurgency, however, was al Qaeda. In the years after the removal of Saddam and after being routed in Afghanistan, al Qaeda chose to make a stand against the United States in Iraq. Al Qaeda’s leaders openly talked about developing a base of operations in Iraq from which they could mount international terrorist attacks. And al Qaeda’s leaders announced a strategy to stoke sectarian violence in Iraq by murdering innocent Iraqi Shia as a way to create chaos that they could exploit. Despite the determined efforts of our military, al Qaeda and its allies in Iraq executed that strategy with frightening brutality and terrifying success.
In 2007, I decided that our strategy in Iraq had to change. I launched a troop surge designed to help Iraq’s new democratic government defeat the terrorists and insurgents. Thanks to historic efforts by our military, intelligence officers, and diplomats, the surge was a success. After several months of tough fighting, al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq and the Iraqis were able to reclaim their country.
Regrettably, because of subsequent developments and decisions, an al Qaeda–inspired organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was able to gain strength in Syria, cross the border into Iraq, wreak havoc on Iraq’s fragile democracy, and attempt to set up a base for terrorist operations. Iraq’s future is uncertain as I write this in 2014. For the sake of our security and the Iraqi people, I hope we will do what it takes to defeat ISIS and allow Iraq’s democratic government a chance to succeed. One thing is certain: The Iraqi people, the United States, and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I believe the decision that Dad made in 1991 was correct—and I believe the same is true of the decision I made a dozen years later.
—
IN JUST OVER two years as President, George Bush had skillfully managed American policy regarding the democratic movements in Eastern Europe, the liberation of Panama, and the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. His foreign policy record would compare favorably with that of any modern President. Then history handed him one more
challenge: the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In a short period of time, the Soviet Union had gone from a rival superpower to a crumbling empire. Mikhail Gorbachev had shown restraint when the nations of Central and Eastern Europe rebelled against communism, but nobody knew how the Kremlin would react when republics within the Soviet Union demanded their independence.
Dad’s strategy was to develop his friendship with Gorbachev while privately urging him to allow the Soviet Union to unwind peacefully. The strategy paid off in early 1991 when Gorbachev agreed to allow a free election for President of the Russian Federation. The voters elected a charismatic reformer named Boris Yeltsin.
Dad’s patient approach encountered some opposition. His speech in Kiev, Ukraine, stressing the importance of a gradual transition to democracy was derided as “Chicken Kiev.” George Bush brushed off the criticism. He was confident that the freedom movements would succeed as long as they were not violently suppressed. And he believed that encouraging Gorbachev—not provoking the Soviet hard-liners—was the best way to avoid a crackdown.
The threats posed by hard-liners in the Kremlin became clear in August 1991. We were in Maine with Dad when Brent Scowcroft informed him that Soviet officials opposed to Gorbachev’s policies and reforms had mounted a coup. They had put Gorbachev under arrest at his vacation house in the Crimea. Dad tried to call Gorbachev, but no one knew how to reach him. It looked like his friend had lost his battle to the old guard. Then, in a memorable scene, Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank and urged the leaders of the coup to back down. Eventually they did, and Gorbachev returned to power. Dad called Yeltsin to thank him and encourage him to stay strong in the face of the hard-liners. Although Gorbachev survived, the Soviet Union had irrevocably changed.
On December 7, 1991, Mother and Dad traveled to Hawaii to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor. It was an emotional day for him, bringing back memories of his service in the war and his comrades who had given their lives. At the memorial honoring the USS Arizona, on which more than 1,100 American sailors died, Dad observed a moment of silence at the exact time when the Japanese bombers had first appeared. He and Mother met with survivors and dropped flowers into the water to honor the lost. In his speech, he stressed remembrance and forgiveness. “I have no rancor in my heart towards Germany or Japan,” he said. “And I hope, in spite of the loss, that you have none in yours. This is no time for recrimination. World War II is over. It is history. We won. We crushed totalitarianism, and when that was done we helped our enemies give birth to democracies.”
The next day, he received a call from Boris Yeltsin, who informed him that the Presidents of the remaining Soviet republics had voted to dissolve the Soviet Union. That meant that Mikhail Gorbachev would no longer have a job.
On Christmas Day, Gorbachev signed the paperwork disbanding the Soviet Union. The flag that had flown over the Kremlin for decades was lowered. Before he left office, Gorbachev placed his final call.
Gorbachev told Dad that he was about to make a statement resigning his position and that he had on his desk a decree disbanding the USSR. Gorbachev thanked the President for the support he had given him, and Dad assured him that history would remember the courageous choices he had made. Then they exchanged the final words ever spoken between a Soviet leader and an American President.
“At this special time of year and at this historic time, we salute you and thank you for what you have done for world peace. Thank you very much,” Dad said.
“Thank you, George,” Gorbachev said. “I am saying good-bye and shaking your hands.”
With the conclusion of that call came one of the most stunning diplomatic achievements in history: a peaceful end to the Cold War.
—
WITH THE DISTANCE of time, the end of the Cold War can seem inevitable. Yet for the generation of Americans who grew up in a world of air-raid drills and fallout shelters and the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seemed that the Cold War would never end—let alone without a shot being fired. Yet beneath the imposing facade, the suffocating ideology of communism could not compete with the human desire for freedom. Ronald Reagan recognized this before most others, and his determination to defeat the Soviet Union rightly earns him credit as the architect of America’s victory in the Cold War. Likewise, Mikhail Gorbachev understood that the Soviet Union had to reform in order to survive. He ultimately failed in that mission. Yet his courageous decision to let his country dissolve without resorting to violence makes him, as the Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis put it, “the most deserving recipient ever of the Nobel Peace Prize.”
I don’t believe Gorbachev could have endured without a partner in the United States. As the August 1991 coup revealed, he faced intense opposition within his own government. Had the United States handled the collapse of communism differently—by gloating over its victory or antagonizing the Soviet hard-liners—Gorbachev might not have been able to resist pressure to intervene violently. Worse, he might have been overthrown by a Soviet leader determined to go down in a hail of nuclear missiles. In some ways, the death throes of the Soviet empire represented one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War.
Thankfully, the United States had a President suited to the moment. Within months of taking office, George Bush had the vision to recognize Gorbachev’s potential, the diplomatic savvy to help him, the humility to avoid provocation, and the strength of character to stand up to pressure from critics. The President who guided the Cold War to a peaceful end was the same decent, humble, thoughtful man that I have known all my life. It’s no exaggeration to say that the lessons that Dorothy Walker Bush taught her son a lifetime earlier—win with grace, don’t brag, think of the other guy—directly contributed to the peace of the world. Not too many mothers can say that.
Future historians will no doubt give George Bush credit for his leadership in ending the Cold War. At the time, however, his success had an unexpected cost. By removing the main foreign policy issues from the agenda of the 1992 election, he erased his greatest strength. In one of the most dramatic turnarounds in political history, George Bush went from an admired leader with approval ratings in the high eighties to a man without a job.
THE HARDEST YEAR
ON HALLOWEEN 1991, a massive storm pounded the Maine coastline. Winds gusting up to seventy-five miles per hour and thirty-foot waves caused more than two hundred million dollars in property damage. Amid the destruction was my parents’ beloved home at Walker’s Point. The Wave, a small guest cottage, was ripped off its foundations. My parents’ house was severely damaged when giant boulders were swept through the living room. Couches floated out to sea. As Dad put it in a letter to a friend, Kennebunkport had endured a “truly historic pounding.” To some local residents, the Halloween nor’easter of 1991 became known as “the perfect storm.”
The storm that struck Walker’s Point was a harbinger of the tumultuous year ahead for George Bush. Just a few months earlier, his decisive handling of the Gulf War and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe had earned him historically high approval ratings. Yet the economy was in recession, and the American people were frustrated. In less than a year, Dad’s approval ratings collapsed by more than forty points. He faced a primary challenger, a billionaire independent, and a Democratic Party determined to retake the White House after twelve years in the political wilderness. For all who loved George Bush, 1992 was a painful year.
—
ALTHOUGH FOREIGN POLICY dominated his presidency, George Bush came to the White House with a serious domestic agenda: to improve education, reduce crime, encourage volunteerism, and stimulate economic growth by keeping taxes low.
Those plans quickly collided with the realities of a struggling economy. The economy had been growing steadily since the recession that Ronald Reagan had confronted in the early 1980s. But rising inflation, combined with the savings and loan crisis, slowed economic growth to a near halt by early 1990. Before long, the country was in recession. The budget defic
it ballooned to more than two hundred billion dollars, nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product. Economic advisers warned that the deficit could drag the economy into an even deeper recession.
The White House strategy was to invigorate the economy by lowering the deficit through spending cuts. The economic policy team hoped that a lower deficit would drive down interest rates and restore consumer confidence, which in turn would stimulate economic growth. In 1990, however, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and they wanted to reduce the deficit by raising taxes rather than cutting spending. After months of negotiation with leaders from both parties, Dad accepted a budget compromise: In exchange for major spending reductions, he would accept some revenue increases. That was what President Reagan had done in 1982, when he agreed to a tax increase as part of a deficit reduction bill. There was a big difference between 1982 and 1990, however. Unlike Ronald Reagan, George Bush had said, “Read my lips: no new taxes.”
Congress considered the compromise in the fall of 1990. Republicans, led by Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia—who at one point had supported the compromise—revolted and failed to pass the bill. Without a spending bill in place, the government shut down briefly. The Democrats took the opportunity to demand personal income tax hikes in addition to other revenue increases. (As we have learned over the years, the American people expect their government to function, and a shutdown led by Republicans always strengthens the Democrats’ hand.) By that point, Dad had deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, where they were preparing to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He felt that he could not afford a budget crisis at home while he was managing a national security crisis abroad. And he believed that reducing the deficit was critical to restarting the economy. He agreed to the revised deal, including the tax increases proposed by the Democrats.
41: A Portrait of My Father Page 19
