The List

Obama's Top 10 Foreign-Policy Headaches

If the president turns to global affairs after his midterm shellacking, the newly emboldened Republican opposition isn't going to make life easy for him.

Now that Republicans have taken back the House of Representatives and seem to be preparing to thwart U.S. President Barack Obama's domestic-policy agenda, the White House may be tempted to look to foreign policy to achieve some victories in the coming year, as well as a means of achieving a measure of cooperation with a seemingly intransigent GOP.

But if that is the administration's strategy, it's likely to fall flat. On most, if not all, of Obama's top foreign-policy action items, a more powerful, less accommodating Congress appears ready to throw additional roadblocks in his way.

As a top GOP congressional aide told FP's The Cable, "You are going to see more aggressiveness to push an agenda and not to defer to the administration." 

Here are the top 10 foreign-policy issues Obama and his team will now have to work harder to move forward on when the new Congress meets in January.


Obama's December 2009 decision to put 30,000 additional troops into the Afghan war effort stood out as the one foreign-policy issue on which the GOP and White House saw eye to eye. In fact, Republicans in Congress provided valuable support to the White House during the rollout of the "Afghan surge" decision, and conservative think-tank experts such as Frederick and Kimberly Kagan have been working closely with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan. But leading GOP lawmakers on military issues, such as Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have been calling on the administration to back away from its promise to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan next July.

The new GOP-led House stands to provide a venue for those who oppose the troop withdrawal to air their views. Expect new House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and new House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) to hold hearings with Petraeus -- who has already not-so-privately aired his concerns about the proposed troop drawdown. It is likely that they will look for any indication that he needs more time or more personnel to complete the mission, boxing Obama into tricky political territory. On the civilian side, new prospective State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) is poised to use her control over civilian aid to press the case for taking a tougher line on Afghan President Hamid Karzai, as her predecessor Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) did in 2010.

Scott Olson/Getty Images


GOP calls for delaying a vote on Obama's nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia are already in full song. Although the Senate did not change hands, the addition of a half-dozen new Republican senators next year would make reaching the 67-vote threshold for ratifying the treaty much more difficult for the administration and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is leading the charge for ratification. The administration is still hoping that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will schedule a vote in the lame-duck session, but GOP leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are signaling they won't go along. Even in the lame duck, finding enough GOP senators to vote for the treaty if their leadership doesn't change its mind will be a daunting task.

The administration has a two-track strategy for getting the treaty, dubbed New START, approved. The main plan is to offer a final package of incentives related to nuclear modernization and nuclear-stockpile maintenance to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is seen as the key Republican in the debate. If Kyl agrees, the majority of the caucus will follow suit. Plan B is to try to peel off moderate senators such as Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to reach the 67-vote threshold.

But a delay until next year could mean a wait until next summer as Congress reorganizes itself. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee would also have to approve the treaty again if no full vote is taken this year. What remains unknown is how new senators, including Tea Party members who could object to the $80 billion the administration is throwing at Kyl to garner his support, would vote. If the GOP kills the treaty, "the message we may be sending is that we're not in the business of passing treaties anymore," said Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.



Iran has been signaling that it wants to return to the negotiating table before year's end. If the mullahs want to strike a deal with the Obama administration over its nuclear program, they had better move fast. The new Congress is likely to press the administration to strictly enforce the penalties under the Iran sanctions legislation that Obama signed this year. While anti-Iran sentiment in Congress is bipartisan, Republicans are more inclined to press the administration to enforce penalties on third countries that do not go along with the sanctions, including Russia and China.

If Obama somehow reaches a deal with Iran, especially one that accepts a limited enrichment capability for Tehran as the price for greater verification and inspections, he will face intense blowback from a Republican House and Republicans in the Senate. The same goes for North Korea. If the administration ever does get back into talks with Pyongyang about its nuclear-weapons program and works out a deal, the GOP could criticize the deal as being too conciliatory to a brutal regime, even if it is less generous than that negotiated by George W. Bush's administration in 2007.



Prior to the election, the debate was heating up over whether the United States' worsening fiscal situation would lead to cuts in the defense budget, which has more than doubled since 9/11. Even some GOP lawmakers seemed to be entertaining the idea, and the president's commission on the deficit is looking at the defense budget as well. Notably, neither Obama nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates is calling for overall cuts in defense spending at this point, but Gates is planning to announce another round of specific weapons-systems cancellations in February via the 2012 budget request.

The GOP-led House, led by new Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and the new head of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), is set to resist cancellations of any large weapons systems. There has been much speculation about whether the Tea Party caucus, soon to be represented by almost three dozen congressmen, would force the GOP to take seriously the idea of cutting the defense budget. But most incoming Tea Party members are poised to exempt defense spending from their calls for austerity, with the possible exception of Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has said defense budget cuts are on the table.



As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama promised to double the foreign aid budget within five years. Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has promised to elevate development alongside defense and diplomacy as a key pillar of U.S. national security policy. Both those promises face increased resistance in Congress next year, as lawmakers look to make budget cuts in programs that lack strong domestic constituencies. "One of the main issue voters are talking about is out-of-control spending, and foreign aid won't be exempt from cuts," one GOP aide told The Cable.

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has proposed holding up foreign aid to a litmus test related to recipient governments' acquiescence to U.S. foreign-policy objectives and has even threatened to vote down the entire foreign-aid budget -- after separating out aid for Israel -- if he isn't satisfied with how some countries are acting in conjunction with U.S. interests. And Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who will probably be tasked with writing the fiscal 2012 state and foreign operations appropriations bill, has said that countries that aren't performing on issues like good governance should have their assistance packages reviewed.

The congressional drive to pass a wholesale reform of foreign-aid distribution has also been dealt a blow due to the GOP takeover of the House. The most comprehensive bill on this front was written by outgoing House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) -- but his bill failed to move out of committee, and it's unlikely that his successor, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), will take up the cause. Expect congressional Republicans to also resist large increases in the budget for the State Department, which is taking on increased roles all over the world, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. The State Department's budget for fiscal 2011 is still under consideration.



It's no secret that Republicans on Capitol Hill have been unhappy with how the administration has been conducting its drive to ink new civilian nuclear deals with a host of countries. After finishing the Bush administration's deal, known as a "123 agreement," with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Obama administration lauded uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing prohibitions in the deal as the "gold standard" for future agreements. The UAE agreed to forgo enrichment in exchange for the deal. But the White House is having trouble getting Vietnam and Jordan to agree to such restrictions, and Republicans on the Hill are sure to hold up such shortcomings as increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Later this month, the Russian 123 agreement, originally brokered by Bush, will go into force if Congress doesn't move to stop it. Cable sources say that there's probably not enough interest in the GOP at the leadership level to thwart the Russia deal at this stage. But incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) was infuriated when the administration didn't even bother to send someone to the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in September on the Russia deal, and she is likely to hold thorough and investigative hearings for any future pacts. She could also lead an effort to amend the Atomic Energy Act to give Congress increased oversight of international civilian nuclear agreements. Another key lawmaker to watch on this is Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), due to his personal interest and expertise on the issue.

Alexandra Beier/Getty Images


Republicans have been calling on the administration to publicly clarify its Syria policy for months. Obama's outreach to Damascus does not seem to be bearing fruit -- Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continues to support Hezbollah, interfere with Lebanese politics, and deepen his country's friendship with Iran. The GOP has been holding up the nomination of Robert Ford to become ambassador to Syria, in part because they haven't gotten full explanations from the administration about what the U.S. government knows about Syrian arms transfers to Hezbollah.

Syria's nuclear ambitions are also a key concern of lawmakers. Some in the International Atomic Energy Agency want to use its special inspection authorities to increase the agency's presence in Syria, but Damascus isn't likely to allow such intrusiveness. So the Obama administration will eventually have to decide whether that's an issue worth taking to the U.N. Security Council. Apparent Syrian violations of other sanctions relating to arms transfers are also an issue that lawmakers, especially Republicans, will be pressing the White House and State Department to deal with. "People are worried that Syria is not being held up to account," one GOP aide said.



The Obama administration has been quietly but steadily moving to loosen travel and trade restrictions on Cuba in advance of what rapprochement advocates would hope to be an eventual repeal the comprehensive sanctions on Havana that have been in place since the 1950s. On this matter, don't expect the GOP to budge much. Ros-Lehtinen, the incoming House Foreign Affairs Commitee chairwoman, is a hard-line Cuba hawk and is set to thwart any additional moves to ease Cuba sanctions or travel restrictions. A Cuban-American from Miami, she even once called for the assassination of former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

"The right is the enforcer on Cuba," one Republican congressional aide explained to The Cable. Berman, the outgoing House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, had a bill before his committee to further ease restrictions on dealing with Cuba, but he never brought it up for a vote because he never thought he had enough committee support to pass it. "That was a major issue for Berman. If he had the votes to pass it, he would have done it," the aide explained.

GOP aides say that the Cuba issue is indicative of what could be a rising chorus coming from Republicans on the Hill about issues of freedom and human rights. "We're going to start to see that it's OK to be vocal about democracy," one aide said.



The administration's drive to sign new free trade agreements across the world could be bolstered by the results of last week's midterm elections. The Democratic House caucus, led by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), didn't move at all to support Obama's free-trade agenda due to opposition from the labor movement. Senior House Republicans, such as incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), are already working to make passing trade deals a focus of their work in the next Congress. In the Senate, personnel changes also seem to favor the drive for free trade. The Senate will have a strong new advocate for free trade in Ohio senator and former U.S. trade representative Rob Portman. A major opponent to free trade agreements was also unseated when Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) lost his re-election race.

The administration is working hard to capitalize on this change and hopes to iron out remaining differences in the free trade agreement with South Korea following his current trip to Asia. Existing deals with Colombia and Panama also await congressional approval. The question is whether free traders in Congress will be able to sway enough fellow House lawmakers to pass the deals. Portman faced significant criticism in Ohio during his campaign from those who think free trade agreements are equivalent to shipping jobs overseas. And even if the House passes the deals, Senate Majority Leader Reid will have to pass them in the Senate, with Republican support, over the objections of some in his own caucus. Lastly, if Obama pushes forward with free trade and ultimately Congress does not support him, he will have spent valuable political capital on a losing battle and have lost credibility with foreign governments.



Senate Republicans have been holding up the nominations of scores of administration officials. The most visible holds are several U.S. ambassadorial nominees, such as Robert Ford to Syria, Frank Ricciardone to Turkey, Matthew Bryza to Azerbaijan, and Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic.

The nominations are held up by different senators for different reasons, some personal, some political. The increased GOP presence in the Senate won't directly affect these nominations, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will have to approve the nominations again if they are not acted on this year.

Republicans won't have control over the Senate agenda completely, but they could use stalling nominations as one more tactic to advance their stated goal of making Obama a one-term president. There's already a sense inside the administration that its work on foreign policy just got more difficult. "The primary impact [of the midterm elections] will be on domestic policy, not foreign policy. But that doesn't mean we in the administration won't face significantly more frustration, delay, and outright pain," one administration source told The Cable.


JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images,

The List

Delusion Points

Don't fall for the nostalgia -- George W. Bush's foreign policy really was that bad.

Two years into Barack Obama's presidency, it has become a cliché to observe that the newish president, who spent his 2008 campaign promising a U-turn from his deeply unpopular predecessor's activities abroad, has ended up with a foreign policy that looks surprising like George W. Bush's. The United States has more troops in Afghanistan than it did at the end of the Bush years, Guantánamo is still open, efforts to engage Iran have failed, and while American soldiers may have begun pulling back from Iraq, they've left plenty of Western defense contractors in their wake.

In anticipation of tomorrow's release of Bush's memoir, Decision Points, this line of thinking is reinforcing one of the Beltway press corps' favorite rituals: the "was he really that bad?" nostalgia for a president that the same reporters and analysts were happily pummeling only two years ago.

Don't believe a word of it. George W. Bush's presidency really was that bad -- and the fact that Obama has largely followed the same course is less a measure of Bush's wisdom than a reminder of the depth of the hole he dug his country into, as well as the institutionalized groupthink that dominates the U.S. foreign-policy establishment.

Decision Points has 14 chapters, each one pivoting around a key decision that Bush made in his adult life. So, in honor of America's newly published ex-president, here's my own list of 14 decisions that Bush made -- ones that tell a slightly different history of the 43rd presidency.


1.Listening to Cheney. In 2000, George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney to run his vice presidential candidate search effort. In a supremely self-confident move, Cheney muscled the competition out of the way and nominated himself -- and Bush agreed. This was Bush's ur-blunder, the mistake from which so many subsequent errors flowed. Cheney wasted no time stocking the administration's foreign-policy apparatus with extremists eager to implement the full neoconservative program, and they got their opportunity on Sept. 12, 2001. As Richard Perle -- a central member of the neocon team himself -- later told the New Yorker's George Packer, "if Bush had staffed his administration with a group of people selected by Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker … Then it could have been different, because they would not have carried into it the ideas that the people who wound up in important positions brought." Talk about failing to dodge a bullet.

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

2. Criminal Minded. During his first year as president, Bush took the unusual step of formally removing the U.S. signature from the convention to create an International Criminal Court. Not only was the move unnecessary -- the convention was already dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate -- but it also angered longtime NATO allies who strongly supported the measure. But the administration still wasn't satisfied: It subsequently threatened to withhold foreign aid to a number of smaller U.S. allies if they didn't reject the convention too, a move that further alienated supporters and angered the governments whose arms were being twisted. From the very start, in short, Bush showed little interest in other states' opinions and was all too willing to throw America's weight around.

RUUD HOFF/AFP/Getty Images

3. No-Go on Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol climate treaty was a flawed agreement, and there was little chance that the U.S. Senate would ever ratify it. But instead of acknowledging the need to address global warming and outlining a better approach to the problem, Bush flatly rejected the idea of any such treaty as, in the words of his spokesman Ari Fleischer, "not in the United States' economic best interests." Instead of making the United States look farsighted and generous, Bush's response made the United States appear both myopic and callous. Thanks to Bush's indifference, eight years went by with hardly any progress on one of the world's thorniest problems -- and one that, a decade later, we're still no closer to solving.

Sion Touhig/Newsmakers

4. Osama bin Who? Bush paid scant attention to terrorism or al Qaeda during the 2000 campaign, and he and his national security team continued that cavalier attitude right up until the 9/11 attacks. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice downgraded the status of the national coordinator for counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz even told Clarke in early 2001 that he was "giv[ing] bin Laden too much credit." Even worse, intelligence warnings of an impending attack in the summer of 2001 received insufficient attention, and we all know what happened next. Bottom line: 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and the buck stops at his desk.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

5. Department of Rhetorical Catastrophes, Part I: The "Global War on Terror." It would have been easy enough for Bush to declare war on al Qaeda and its allies after 9/11. Instead, he declared war on the very idea of terrorism -- a decision that theoretically gave the United States a dog in local conflicts from Ireland to Uzbekistan to Sri Lanka, and not always on the side of the good guys.

Declaring a "war on terror" also gave Osama bin Laden a loftier status than he deserved. Instead of portraying him as a murderous criminal worthy of international contempt and little else, the rhetoric of global conflict elevated him to the status of a warrior heroically defying the world's sole superpower. It also encouraged Americans to wrongly view terrorism as a military problem, instead of one that is best addressed through patient intelligence efforts, domestic security measures, and quiet collaboration with like-minded governments.

Graham Barclay/BWP Media/Getty Images

6. Making "Waterboard" a Household Word. Within days of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began preparing to authorize a set of practices -- meticulously documented in Jane Mayer's excellent The Dark Side -- that are normally associated with brutal military dictatorships. These measures included the systematic use of torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, secret renditions of suspected terrorists, targeted assassinations, and indefinite detention without trial at Guantánamo and other overseas facilities. These practices were endorsed and approved by John Yoo, a mid-level official in the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and Bush admits in his memoir that he personally approved the waterboarding of captured terrorist suspects. The sordid debacle at Abu Ghraib prison was hardly an isolated incident conducted by poorly supervised subordinates; it was in fact entirely consistent with Bush's post-9/11 approach to human rights and civil liberties. And as Obama's inability to shut down Guantánamo suggests, it may take decades to dismantle these practices and restore America's tarnished international image.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

7. Department of Rhetorical Catastrophes, Part II: The "Axis of Evil." In the months following 9/11, the United States received a surprising degree of help in Afghanistan from Iran, a country which (whatever its history with the United States) was no friend of al Qaeda and a bitter enemy of the Taliban. Intelligence sharing and diplomatic coordination with Tehran helped the United States rout the Taliban and later install Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul.

How did Bush reward Iran for this valuable assistance? By labeling it part of an "Axis of Evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union address, along with Iraq and North Korea. This foolish bit of bombast derailed any possibility of building a better relationship with pre-Ahmadinejad Iran, which may have been precisely what Bush's neoconservative speechwriters intended.

Eric Draper/White House/Getty Images

8. Iraq. The Iraq war was a screw-up of such colossal magnitude that it's easy to forget how many discrete screw-ups went into the making of it. There were the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and the nonexistent links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There's the humiliating spectacle of Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting hours of bogus testimony to the U.N. Security Council. There was Paul Wolfowitz's bizarre claim that the war would pay for itself, when the real price tag is now in excess of $1 trillion. And let us not forget the 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, more than 30,000 American soldiers wounded, and several million Iraqi refugees forced to flee their homes. A strategy that was supposed to bring U.S.-friendly democracy to the Middle East instead produced an empowered Iran and a more fragile balance of power in the region. The only thing more astonishing than the scope of these blunders is the fact that the former president does not regret his decision, even now.


9. Snubbing Iran, Again. In the midst of the "Mission Accomplished" euphoria that followed the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, a worried Iran sent a Swiss intermediary to Washington with a far-reaching offer for a "grand bargain," including an end to Iranian support for groups such as Hezbollah and a deal on Iran's nuclear energy program. The offer was reportedly approved by Iran's top leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Bush administration turned the Iranians down flat -- why negotiate with the next candidate for regime change? -- and Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for even delivering the message in the first place.

Instead of a possible rapprochement, we ended up with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president and a steadily worsening relationship with Tehran. Would a different response have left us in a better position today? We'll never know.


10. Sabotaging Peace in the Middle East. When Bush took office, he decided to put Israeli-Palestinian peace on the back burner, even though plenty of people warned him that the situation would only get worse if neglected. After 9/11, he did briefly try to persuade Israel to exercise some restraint in the occupied territories; the situation there, he realized, was fueling anti-Americanism in the Arab and Islamic world and making it harder to weaken al Qaeda. Bush soon came under pressure from the Israel lobby, however, which helped convince him that the United States and Israel were "partners against terror" and that he should just follow the Israeli lead on this issue.

For the rest of his presidency, Bush's Middle East diplomacy consisted of a series of essentially meaningless gestures, most notably the 2003 "road map" and the 2007 Annapolis summit. Meanwhile, Israel continued to expand settlements in the West Bank with hardly a murmur of protest from Washington. Bush refused to have anything to do with Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and did hardly anything to bolster Arafat's moderate successor, Mahmoud Abbas, even after the new leader repeatedly renounced the use of terrorism, endorsed Israel's right to exist, and reaffirmed his desire to negotiate a final status agreement. Bush also did virtually nothing to build on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which the Arab League endorsed at its Beirut summit that year and again at the 2007 Riyadh summit. By the time Bush left office, a two-state solution was more distant than ever, and America's image in the Middle East had hit a new low.

It gets worse: Bush also gave a green light to Israel's misguided attempt to use air power disarm Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel's strategy was doomed to fail, and though U.S. officials had been briefed about its plans well before the war broke out, Bush did not tell the Israelis to come up with a better strategy. Instead, he gave Tel Aviv consistent diplomatic backing, even when it became clear that its strategy was not working and was causing massive damage throughout Lebanon. The United States even delayed a U.N. cease-fire resolution in order to give Israel time to "finish the job," a measure that prolonged the war for no good purpose and led to even greater Israeli casualties.


11. Hurricane Katrina. It takes a truly spectacular domestic-policy blunder to register as a foreign-policy screw-up, too. Yet Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina was exactly that. Observers around the world saw this debacle as both a demonstration of waning U.S. competence and a revealing indicator of continued racial inequality, if not outright injustice. (You know you've screwed up when you get offers of relief aid from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.) Because America's "soft power" depends on other states believing that we know what we are doing and that we stand for laudable ideals, the disaster in New Orleans was yet another self-inflicted blow to America's global image. If the United States cannot take good care of its own citizens, why should anyone think we can "nation-build" in some distant foreign land?


12. Democracy, but Only When Our Guys Win. When it turned out that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, Bush tried to justify the invasion as part of a broader campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East. Unfortunately he was no better at that than he was at finding mobile bioweapons labs or chemical weapons caches. Bush pressed the Palestinian Authority to hold legislative elections in 2006, but when Hamas won, he simply refused to accept the results. For Bush, it seemed, democracy only made sense when the candidates that he liked won. The White House subsequently tried to foment a Fatah-led coup, a ploy that backfired and left Hamas in charge of Gaza and the Palestinians badly divided.


13. How Not to Stop Nuclear Proliferation. Bush was clearly worried about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, especially after 9/11. But the decisions he made unwittingly encouraged it. He threatened would-be proliferators with sanctions and regime change, and refused to hold serious talks with them until they fully complied with American demands. If anything, this approach gave North Korea and Iran a powerful incentive to obtain a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from the United States. Not surprisingly, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 and conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. It is not clear whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but it is certainly in the process of developing a sophisticated nuclear enrichment capability that will bring it close to the point where it could build a nuclear weapon if it ever decided that a deterrent was needed. During Bush's eight years in the White House, Iran went from having a few hundred nuclear centrifuges to having more than 5,000. And while Iran faced economic sanctions and the threat of military force, India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or open all of its nuclear facilities to outside inspections -- and still obtained a generous new nuclear cooperation agreement.


14. The Crash Heard 'Round the World. By lowering taxes while waging costly wars, Bush produced near-record fiscal deficits and a mountain of foreign debt. At the same time, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's easy money policy encouraged a vast real estate bubble that eventually collapsed in 2008. Bush's economic team also paid little attention to regulating Wall Street, thereby facilitating the reckless behavior that produced a major financial collapse in 2008. The resulting meltdown cost Americans trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, and the aftermath will affect U.S. economic prospects for many years to come.

Although Bush does not deserve all the blame for causing the greatest recession since the 1930s, he was in charge when it happened and his actions contributed significantly to the debacle. And because international influence ultimately rests upon a state's economic strength, the damage wrought by this economic crisis may be Bush's most enduring foreign-policy legacy.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

One could go on. There's the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the opportunistic decision to impose tariffs on imported steel in 2002, the failure to hold military commanders accountable for letting bin Laden escape at the battle of Tora Bora, the failure to fire the serially incompetent Rumsfeld after the Iraq war went south, and the mixed messages from Washington that encouraged Georgia to miscalculate its way into war with Russia in the summer of 2008. But there's no need to pile on further, and you may be running short on anti-depressants by now.

The United States would have been far better off had George W. Bush never decided to enter politics and instead had spent the last two decades running a baseball team. The former president wasn't particularly good at that job either, but failure there would have had far fewer consequences for America and for the world. Obama's efforts to clean up Bush's legacy may have been disappointing so far, but that's no reason to feel nostalgic for the man who created all these messes in the first place.