Fareed Zakaria has a cover story in Newsweek on how the Bush administration’s current foreign policy isn't what it used to be:"A broad shift in America’s approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush’s basic conception of a “global War on Terror,” to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush’s first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed. This has happened without acknowledgment—which is partly what drives critics crazy—and it’s often been done surreptitiously. It doesn’t reflect a change of heart so much as an admission of failure; the old way simply wasn’t working. But for whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them."
It's too bad this comes so late in the game, and after so many mistakes. But it does show progress. The challenge for the next president, especially Obama, is that to show his departure from the Bush administration, his policies may move away from some of the progress that has been made. This pattern in foreign is not new. Carter had a similar experience, where his mistakes spurred a shift in policy. But his took the opposite path instead starting hawkish, he ended that way. And in both cases, their legacy was (will be) defined by failure.
