As I have acknowledged many times, President Bush has made many mistakes during his two terms, although he has also made plenty of correct decisions. However, when he was first elected, he never imagined that he would be a war-time president, yet the liberation of Iraq and the fight against terrorism will surely be the hallmarks of his administration.

I have always believe that, despite the mistakes he, his administration, and the military made in the the middle part of the Iraq war, if the liberation proves successful and a terrorism-fighting democracy is established in place of Saddam's evil dictatorship (and that outcome certainly looks likely), history will, in the long run, look very favorably on George W. Bush. The United States and the peaceful West will reap the benefits of a peaceful Iraq for generations, notwithstanding the high cost in lives and dollars.

Charles Krauthammer has written a piece for National Review Online examining history's shifting view of wartime presidents. Here's part of his conclusion:

...Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) — also absent an attack on the U.S. — that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Read the whole thing, and forget about approval ratings.