Why do those that praise Reagan accuse others of cutting and running?

Question

Reagan left Marines vulnerable in 1983 Beirut
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-reagan-histories_x.htm

After 241 Marines were killed, did Reagan "cut and ran" from Beirut?

Didn't Reagan perfect the art of cutting and running after such a vicious attack?

Answer 1

Because most of the punks on Yahoo answers were not even alive when this occurred (and cannot read a history book on their own without the Faux News Network interpreting it for them).

We shouldn't have been in Beirut, just as we should have never gone to Iraq. Period - end of story.

Answer 2

The United States did not "cut and run" in Beirut in 1984. ( to those of you who don't or can't read a history book, the attack on the barracks occured in October 1983, on the 23rd {the day before I invaded Grenada} and the Marines left in March of 1984).
The reason they were removed is because it was an untennable position. Conditions in Lebanon changed dramatically from the start of the "United Nations Peacekeeping Effort" the pretext under which we sent in troops, to the time in February when we in the 6th fleet expended several thousand rounds of 5" and several hundred rounds of 16" he and frag in an effort to protect the marines at the airport. The shiite backed radicals occupied the high ground and were able to shell the marines with relative impunity. Because the marines were there under UN guidelines, they were prohibited from actively engaging these scumbags in an offensive manner.
One cannot effectively fight with their hands tied, and so the decision was made to evacuate.
I was there and I believe it was the correct decision.
Uss Caron. DD-970.

Mr. Know it all, You know Jack Sh**. US Forces were on their way to Grenada several DAYS before the barracks in Beirut was bombed. Reagan was a great president, but he wasn't psychic!!! To say that the invasion of Grenada was to distract from Beirut is dishonest and does great dis-service to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Answer 3

Good question. As I remember, the threat in Beirut did not include anyone claiming that WMD were involved or that the radicals were trying to acquire them. On the other hand, we went into Iraq after former members of Saddam's military and government told us he was developing WMD and he refused to abide by a treaty that said we had the right to inspect his weapons facilities. It may have been unwise to believe the defectors from Saddam's government over intelligence reports that didn't back up their claims.

After it became clear that there were no WMD to be found, and Saddam was gone, your question becomes even more valid. One difference, for what it's worth, is that Lebanon was partly occupied our ally, Israel, which is and was a major power in that part of the Middle East, and none of our enemies in the area wanted to get into another war with them. Iraq, on the other hand, could have fallen under the influence of Iran and Syria if we just pulled out and let the civil war run it's course. Our ally, Turkey, is only interested in keeping the Kurdish section of Iraq under its power, leaving the rest of Iraq to Iran and Syria.

I don't think bin Laden had started causing us trouble by '83 either, and the aftermath of a US pullout from Iraq might seem to Bush like a better opportunity for them than having us stay in Iraq.

The problem with "the lessons of history" is that we really never know what would have happened if things were done differently, and every historian you ask will find a different lesson (many of which will contradict other historians).

Answer 4

Reagan didn't cut-and-run. You're not telling the whole story. After 12 Marines were trapped in a building, ambushed, and killed, your beloved Democrat's who controlled Congress demanded the end of Beirut.
Here are about 100 links to the truth. Take your pick.

Answer 5

It still is the worst single loss of life for US troops since Vietnam.

A, he didn't properly protect the marines and B, he failed to retaliate when they were massacred.

If something like that happened under Clinton, it would be among the top 5 favorite talking points that the Cons bring up to counter any criticism of Bush.

To the responder above, at least Clinton had the good sense to pull the marines out of Somalia. When it was apparent that they had no clear achievable mission, he decided not to risk further loss of life. That is what a leader does.

Answer 6

Sort of like Clinton denying Armor in Somalia.... selective memory... but the caveat is Reagan then transformed the Carter Era Military he inherited on that operation to success in the Fall of the Soviet empire.

Clinton on the other hand continued after his debacle to cut the military over 36% and constantly retreat and allow Al Queada to attack for 8 straight years resulting in 9/11....

Answer 7

Because those people are idiots. Reagan realized that American military involvement in the Middle East was a raw deal, acted accordingly, and took full responsibility for his mistake. If only we had that kind of integrity in the White House today, we would not be in this mess.

Answer 8

Simply put...DENIAL.
They deny anything and everything that Reagan did that would adversly affect his reputation, while attributing everything the President accomplished before and after him, as a Super Reagan deed.
About the only thing i can see that he did that was beneficial, is forget who he was.
after all, the chemical and biological weapons we didn't want Saddam to have, were given or sold to him, by the Reagan admin.

Reagan perfected the art of "I do not recall...."

Answer 9

Maybe President Reagan was senile,I don't know if he was but even at his worst he still had more sense than Carter.

Answer 10

Yes, I know. I knew Marines that were there when it happened.

But we weren't at war then - we were part of a peacekeeping mission. Completely different mission. The fleet did stay and bomb the hell out of the enemy.

Since our presence there was not for combat operations, it wasn't "cut & run".

You're simply and completely wrong. As usual.