If these events come to pass—if the Iraq of 2038 or so is stable, democratic, and at peace with its neighbors, and if American troops have maintained a constant presence in the country—no one should be surprised to hear hawkish liberals as well as conservatives taking up the idea that George W. Bush deserves a great deal of the credit.-Douthat-comma-Ross
In two parts.First, it's true that any later-on rehabilitation of Bush, either as a man or as a policy, would involve a consensus opinion that would include non-conservatives.
However, it would be problematic (for me) to look to "liberal hawks". For one, I don't know what that is, exactly. For another, I'm not sure who that is (although I give the benefit of some doubt).
As for the credit-grab by-and-by, I agree with Ross that it could occur. Although an imploding Syria or Iran; a re-militarized Iraq (i.e. the 36o outcome); or a challenged Egyptian or Saudi regime make any long-term, 2038 hope radically non-linear.
But, it is the current, "the war is wrong" crowd who will be "redeemed" in the way Ross thinks, if anyone is, not Bush, et. al.
"History" is cruel, eh?
Why? Because spreading democracy as a matter of national security is not an inherently conservative philosophy, so there is little chance that its eventuality will redound to a politics (or politician) at odds with it.
