Reagan Orders Marines out of Beirut, Following Collapse of Lebanese Cabinet.
Reagan had vigorously resisted congressional pressure to withdraw the Marines, so his announcement to withdraw troops took Washington by surprise.......
Your thoughts?
2007-11-08 11:26:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, yes he did. In fact, that is the best example of the US military "cutting and running" that I can think of. When Clinton withdrew the troops from Somalia, it was kind of the same thing; however, we had far fewer troops in Somalia, we lost far fewer soldiers before "cutting and running", and Clinton wasn't the one who put them there in the first place. Reagan bears the full responsibility for placing American troops in Lebanon and withdrawing them after it got too dangerous. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If your troops are doing nothing but sitting around waiting to be killed, what's the point of having them there at all?
When Al Qaeda bombed the train stations in Madrid and the Spanish soldiers ran home from Iraq, that was pretty bad. But again, not necessarily a bad thing because what the hell were Spanish soldiers doing in Iraq anyway? But it sure looked bad and probably gave Al Qaeda their most impressive "victory".
2007-11-08 11:36:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
His Administration understood that Muslim Arabs are vehemently against western troops on Muslim soil. Reagan diminished U.S. forces around the Middle East to foster better relations in the Islamic world. His successor, George H.W. Bush, built up military forces for the Gulf War, then left those military bases open when the war was over, infuriating Muslims. Bill Clinton also maintained those bases, sited by Osama bin Laden as the primary reason for his 1996 Fatwa to kill Americans. After 9/11, George W. Bush closed the Saudi bases.
2007-11-08 19:30:05 · answer #2 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you had read the Reagan Diaries then youd know that President Reagan wanted to turn the Middle East into a parking lot. At the time, it was unknown that Iran was a major player. At the time, we didnt know who would be the best target. Reagan didnt cut and run. He wanted to light people up. His advisers talked him into not taking military action until a viable target could be proved with no shadow of doubt of who the guilty parties were.
2007-11-08 19:39:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely. But worse, we never tried to find the group responsible for the barracks bombing or hold them accountable. This was a classic " Cut and Run" scenero if ever there was one.
2007-11-08 19:46:43 · answer #4 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean after he left 200 Marines get slaughtered because they were not allowed to have guns.
2007-11-08 19:34:28 · answer #5 · answered by jean 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No what happened was that a group of congressional Democrats went to him and threatened to hamstring his domestic programs if we didn't leave Beirut. You might know the leader of this group, fellow by the name of John Murtha. Of course today's dems like to leave that out of the account.
2007-11-08 19:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes.
Because Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
Unlike Bush, Reagan knew the Democrats would surrender and support the Enemy.
2007-11-08 19:36:17 · answer #7 · answered by dinamuk 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yeah and it worked out real well for the Lebanese didn't it.
2007-11-08 19:34:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes, "cut and run" is not always a bad option
2007-11-08 19:28:37 · answer #9 · answered by PD 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
no....we only had problems when president jimmy carter kicked the shah of iran out of his reign and allowed the fanatics to rule iran that we had problems. that is what happens when we have democrats in office.
2007-11-08 19:30:47 · answer #10 · answered by holeeycow 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋