Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a UK-based political analyst. The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Friday evening marked the passing of the 41st President of the United States, George H.W Bush, who served from 1989-1992. A former oil businessman, ambassador to the United Nations, Congressman and Vice President, Bush Sr. rose within a prominent political dynasty to hold the office during an epoch of rapid change throughout the international system.

With his domestic legacy somewhat unremarkable and eventually contributing to his short tenure, he serves to be remembered primarily for his oversight in a time when America's role within the world was transforming.

Engaging in the high stakes conflict of the Gulf War, he heralded what he proclaimed as “a new world order,” his stamp of authority on what he believed would become a U.S. unipolar era, something which has also earned him criticism from some voices.

But ought this to taint his legacy and make him a controversial figure?

Not necessarily. As much as there can always be disagreements, it was a world far more united and hopeful than today. Bush's Gulf War was not a brash act of American unipolarity as has been seen on many instances, but a multilateral approved conflict which heralded a relatively stable international order for a decade; one which China ultimately benefited from too, whom Bush was not hostile to.

With the Gulf War standing as Bush's primary legacy, critics have spoken out upon his passing to condemn the conflict as an act of American warmongering and opportunism in the Middle East, a repetitive theme which applies accurately to many of the conflicts in that region, not least that engineered by his own son 13 years later.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the transition of the international system to a unipolar one completely dominated by the U.S. at that time, it is argued such a war was a chance to demonstrate America's new “role” within the world.

On that note there was no better chance to do so than when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein explicitly annexed the small oil Sheikdom of Kuwait, having also waged an unsuccessful, highly costly invasion of Iran just years prior.

Following the invasion, George H.W. Bush would lead the international response, assembling a coalition of countries to liberate the monarchy from Iraqi forces, which also included regional partners such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

But is this criticism of Bush deserved? Certainly, the conflict was a flagrant showcasing of American power, a real “showing who's boss” act to demonstrate the fact nobody had the power to match the United States at that time.

There were some acts which are being brought up by critics today, including the infamous “highway of death” whereby American bombers decimated a highway of trucks and convoys without any real knowledge to what they were doing. As with most wars, innocent people died, it is never a praiseworthy scenario.

Yet at the same time, there was little else about the Gulf War which made it actually illegitimate. To the entire international community, Saddam's barely disguised annexation of Kuwait, a legally and internationally recognized sovereign state, was unacceptable.

The United Nations, although obviously under the mantle of what was then undisputed American hegemony, approved this conflict as a legal one via established and proper procedures. It stood in stark contrast to the illegal unilateral acts commenced by his son on the same country in the following decade.

In doing so, Bush was pragmatic and prudent to China in securing their support. Although there were some upsets, the end of the Cold War did not serve to seriously damage relations between Washington and Beijing, maintaining a functional relationship stood as a priority. 

As a result, it was a war the international community was largely united over, even if they had little choice. What would follow would be harsh on the Iraqis, which included a total economic embargo on absolutely everything.

Yet it would usher in a rare decade of stability within the Middle East, even if it was American actions both prior to and after the war which would contribute again to its unraveling.

Yet, the Gulf war was not enough to glorify Bush Sr. at the leader of a “new era,” most of that is still associated with his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. Domestic politics would bring him down. As the U.S. economy suffered from the recession of the early 1990s, the glamour of hegemony would not help him as he became uninspiring and unpopular among voters.

As the war wound up in late 1992, Bush was ousted from office by a young and progressive Bill Clinton, ending over 13 years of Republican dominance.

George H.W Bush was a cordial U.S. president for the most part. His tenure spoke more about the wider world than him as a person or leader. As we reflect upon his loss, there is ultimately little cause to be bitter or angry about as a whole. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)