So Zenpundit invites my opinion of his views on historians speaking out on current events. Inspired by a couple of posts at American Future, Mark (and Marc) didn't seem impressed.

That being said, academics make a terrible misjudgement by misrepresenting their instant analysis of contemporary events on their blogs or in op-ed pieces as sound scholarship, particularly historical scholarship. It isn't. It's informed, expert opinion and interesting to be sure, compared to lightweight ruminating by airhead anchors in the MSM but the methodology, documents and peer review simply are not there. The official declassified state papers for American foreign policy - The Foreign Relations of the United States series- is only just now opening up the Nixon-Ford years to scrutiny. There is much left for this period in the National Archives, at the CIA, at Defense and at presidential libraries to be declassified - to say nothing of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II administrations.

Well, I didn't read them as claiming their responses were any form of scholarship. Basically, they said how they would look at Bush were he an historical figure.

Not that I, personally, mind their passing judgment at this point.

Fact is, though, between classified information, clouded perceptions in the heat of the moment, propaganda and the "history is written by the victors" factors, there's no way possible to estimate how history will treat Bush or any contemporary figure. As all the historians quoted at American Future said, it's obvious Bush is an important figure in history. But the actual judgment laid on his administration will depend on the moral and circumstances at the time the judgment is made and will change over time.

The surest way for him to be recorded in a positive light would be to steamroll the Middle East flat.