If we think 20 years from now, the from european eyes insane Bush policy in Iraq could finally turn out to be seen as a historic success. This seems provocative, but we see more evolvement in a civil system after a period of civil war than in Afghanistan. Therefore hawks of the future, tied to the Bush clique, could later argue, that the strong and intense regime change by force has actually shaped a better ground for a souvereign and more or less democratic iraqi state than the almost unvisible process of diplomatic efforts. Than they could
deduct that for any state, that has left the period of colonialism into a state of tyranny and dictatorship, this could be the most successful way to handle it, meaning first destroy it completely to be able rebuild it sustainably. That would also mean, it could be the copy&paste of the procedure in Europe after WW II.
Now, it seems no risk: Obamas victory was clear, the financial system in the US is in ruins and Main street will suffer even more soon. The foreign policy suffered from a period of non-dialogue, the problems with Russia, Iran, Israel & Palastine could all be read as a consequence of such acting. However, that is the current reading. But this could also be read as the total opposite of failure in say 20 years from now. Bush destroyed so much, that this was, without intention, the best ground for rebuilding a strong financial system that is globally regulated and more transparent than ever. And that he actually helped to to build the ground for better governed states in Arabia and more democracy in eastern europe than one ever thought could be possible.
As I said: This is all purely hypothetical and might be provocing for many. It is not popular either. But the hope for the Messiah is not realistic, Obama is a human and will make his faults and we will learn that he is dependend on global solutions, he has to start communication again. This is all possible as he will start from the opposite, a period of monologue and fundamental convincements on both sides.
However, especially Europe makes the mistake to assume that dialogue between states is based on rationalism and enlightment. It is not. Is is based on rules for communication and balance of power. That is much more basic than the agreement of denial of higher powers such as a god before you communicate.
Why is it going to become important? Because the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not stopped. Weapons of mass destruction will be in Iran or North Korea sooner or later and then we will have to discuss with Fundamentalists as they could threat not only their neighbours, but ourselves with longreaching missiles. This has little to do with terrorism, this is the danger of a third world war. We have little communication between the US and Russia and we have an unsolved and instabile Pakistan while we focus on Afghanistan, where the international community is as unsuccessful as in Israel and Palastine. There is no groundbreaking achievement visible since the longterm plan for Afghanistan is even more vague than in Iraq. And neither Palastine nor Israel have agreed on a longterm future for themselves that allows both to coexist.
If the world cannot agree on coexistence, than there is not rational dialogue ever possible. And Bushs doctrins could again become the ultimate slogans for foreign policy of the hawks. Sooner or later, the US will have a republican president again as the US are not what we want them to be, a larger and more potent Europe.