Second, after the rapid and successful liberation of Iraq, a violent insurgency broke out. The insurgents were fueled in part by internal ethnic strife that Saddam had cultivated for decades and in part by Iran and Syria, both of which had incentives to meddle in Iraq as a way to prevent the development of a democracy that would be an ally of the free world. The most dangerous and unexpected force behind the insurgency, however, was al Qaeda. In the years after the removal of Saddam and after being routed in Afghanistan, al Qaeda chose to make a stand against the United States in Iraq. Al Qaeda’s leaders openly talked about developing a base of operations in Iraq from which they could mount international terrorist attacks. And al Qaeda’s leaders announced a strategy to stoke sectarian violence in Iraq by murdering innocent Iraqi Shia as a way to create chaos that they could exploit. Despite the determined efforts of our military, al Qaeda and its allies in Iraq executed that strategy with frightening brutality and terrifying success.

In 2007, I decided that our strategy in Iraq had to change. I launched a troop surge designed to help Iraq’s new democratic government defeat the terrorists and insurgents. Thanks to historic efforts by our military, intelligence officers, and diplomats, the surge was a success. After several months of tough fighting, al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq and the Iraqis were able to reclaim their country.

Regrettably, because of subsequent developments and decisions, an al Qaeda–inspired organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was able to gain strength in Syria, cross the border into Iraq, wreak havoc on Iraq’s fragile democracy, and attempt to set up a base for terrorist operations. Iraq’s future is uncertain as I write this in 2014. For the sake of our security and the Iraqi people, I hope we will do what it takes to defeat ISIS and allow Iraq’s democratic government a chance to succeed. One thing is certain: The Iraqi people, the United States, and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I believe the decision that Dad made in 1991 was correct—and I believe the same is true of the decision I made a dozen years later.

—

IN JUST OVER two years as President, George Bush had skillfully managed American policy regarding the democratic movements in Eastern Europe, the liberation of Panama, and the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. His foreign policy record would compare favorably with that of any modern President. Then history handed him one more challenge: the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In a short period of time, the Soviet Union had gone from a rival superpower to a crumbling empire. Mikhail Gorbachev had shown restraint when the nations of Central and Eastern Europe rebelled against communism, but nobody knew how the Kremlin would react when republics within the Soviet Union demanded their independence.

Dad’s strategy was to develop his friendship with Gorbachev while privately urging him to allow the Soviet Union to unwind peacefully. The strategy paid off in early 1991 when Gorbachev agreed to allow a free election for President of the Russian Federation. The voters elected a charismatic reformer named Boris Yeltsin.

Dad’s patient approach encountered some opposition. His speech in Kiev, Ukraine, stressing the importance of a gradual transition to democracy was derided as “Chicken Kiev.” George Bush brushed off the criticism. He was confident that the freedom movements would succeed as long as they were not violently suppressed. And he believed that encouraging Gorbachev—not provoking the Soviet hard-liners—was the best way to avoid a crackdown.

The threats posed by hard-liners in the Kremlin became clear in August 1991. We were in Maine with Dad when Brent Scowcroft informed him that Soviet officials opposed to Gorbachev’s policies and reforms had mounted a coup. They had put Gorbachev under arrest at his vacation house in the Crimea. Dad tried to call Gorbachev, but no one knew how to reach him. It looked like his friend had lost his battle to the old guard. Then, in a memorable scene, Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank and urged the leaders of the coup to back down. Eventually they did, and Gorbachev returned to power. Dad called Yeltsin to thank him and encourage him to stay strong in the face of the hard-liners. Although Gorbachev survived, the Soviet Union had irrevocably changed.

On December 7, 1991, Mother and Dad traveled to Hawaii to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor. It was an emotional day for him, bringing back memories of his service in the war and his comrades who had given their lives. At the memorial honoring the USS Arizona, on which more than 1,100 American sailors died, Dad observed a moment of silence at the exact time when the Japanese bombers had first appeared. He and Mother met with survivors and dropped flowers into the water to honor the lost. In his speech, he stressed remembrance and forgiveness. “I have no rancor in my heart towards Germany or Japan,” he said. “And I hope, in spite of the loss, that you have none in yours. This is no time for recrimination. World War II is over. It is history. We won. We crushed totalitari

anism, and when that was done we helped our enemies give birth to democracies.”

The next day, he received a call from Boris Yeltsin, who informed him that the Presidents of the remaining Soviet republics had voted to dissolve the Soviet Union. That meant that Mikhail Gorbachev would no longer have a job.

On Christmas Day, Gorbachev signed the paperwork disbanding the Soviet Union. The flag that had flown over the Kremlin for decades was lowered. Before he left office, Gorbachev placed his final call.

Gorbachev told Dad that he was about to make a statement resigning his position and that he had on his desk a decree disbanding the USSR. Gorbachev thanked the President for the support he had given him, and Dad assured him that history would remember the courageous choices he had made. Then they exchanged the final words ever spoken between a Soviet leader and an American President.

“At this special time of year and at this historic time, we salute you and thank you for what you have done for world peace. Thank you very much,” Dad said.

“Thank you, George,” Gorbachev said. “I am saying good-bye and shaking your hands.”

With the conclusion of that call came one of the most stunning diplomatic achievements in history: a peaceful end to the Cold War.

—

WITH THE DISTANCE of time, the end of the Cold War can seem inevitable. Yet for the generation of Americans who grew up in a world of air-raid drills and fallout shelters and the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seemed that the Cold War would never end—let alone without a shot being fired. Yet beneath the imposing facade, the suffocating ideology of communism could not compete with the human desire for freedom. Ronald Reagan recognized this before most others, and his determination to defeat the Soviet Union rightly earns him credit as the architect of America’s victory in the Cold War. Likewise, Mikhail Gorbachev understood that the Soviet Union had to reform in order to survive. He ultimately failed in that mission. Yet his courageous decision to let his country dissolve without resorting to violence makes him, as the Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis put it, “the most deserving recipient ever of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

I don’t believe Gorbachev could have endured without a partner in the United States. As the August 1991 coup revealed, he faced intense opposition within his own government. Had the United States handled the collapse of communism differently—by gloating over its victory or antagonizing the Soviet hard-liners—Gor

bachev might not have been able to resist pressure to intervene violently. Worse, he might have been overthrown by a Soviet leader determined to go down in a hail of nuclear missiles. In some ways, the death throes of the Soviet empire represented one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War.