Here's an interesting question (not my own, unfortunately)... posted on a blog...?

Question

Reagan's Foreign Policy

Ronald Reagan's reputation in some quarters as a fast-draw, shoot-from-the-hip hard-liner is not borne out by the data. Quite the contrary. Reagan exhibited remarkable prudence and, some believe, uncanny long-term vision.

Case in point: September 1, 1983, a South Korean passenger jet was shot down by the Soviet Union, killing all 269 aboard, including 55 Americans. An outcry for retaliation against the Evil Empire erupted.

Presidential Counselor Michael Deaver describes Reagan's reaction: “He said, `Fellas, I've heard all of this, but let me tell ya, we're not gonna do anything.' And I was stunned. Here was a guy who had the best chance in 40 years to do whatever he wanted to do to the Soviets.

And then he said, `The world's gonna make a judgment about them. We don't have to. What we have to do is keep our long- term interests in mind here.’”

A second case in point. Muslim terrorists in October 1983 drove a suicide truck bomb into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

241 American troops died. What was the president's response?

Over the ensuing five-month period, Reagan withdrew the 2,000 remaining Marines, eventually moving them from the theater entirely. Reagan also accepted full responsibility: “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president, and I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.”

John McLaughlin asks that given the provocations of September 11 were of greater magnitude than the Soviet shoot-down of the jetliner and the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, how would Ronald Reagan have responded to the horrors of 9/11?

dstr: Hindsight is 20/20. Still, I don't believe for a minute that Reagan would have handled this as it has been. I'm not bashing any president of any party. At the end of the day, though, I think we - expressing our collective conscience - have far better powers of logic than those we elect.

To any who presume Reagan began suffering from Alzheimer's symptoms while still in office, I submit the fact that his powers of recall in any matter of relevance rivaled that of many men half his age, even till his farewell speech.

After a 1989 riding accident, in which he was reportedly thrown from his horse at near-full gallop and his head hit a rock (mind you, the man was 78 years old), the symptoms became apparent to family members first, then, gradually to close acquaintances and on to the broader arena.

Say what you must about his acting. I'm the first to admit that, in comparison to his mastery of office, his acting career was easy to upstage, oddly by the same general tools of public persona and communication.

But there's little support for the clamor that his speeches were prepared and that he only "read from the teleprompter".

Reagan wrote most if not all his most important speeches. Peggy Noonan little more than proofed them.

Answer 1

Well, one of the things I find - almost - redeeming about President Reagan is that he was perfectly willing to entertain the hardliner rhetoric which the neoconservatives LOVE, but which is totally impractical, at the same time he was perfectly willing to deeply engage and have good relations with the same people he was being "hardline" to.

By way of example, the "Evil Empire" speech - written in part by none-other that Richard Perle and Bill Kristol, was meant to send a hard-line message to the Soviet Union...

Message delivered, Reagan promptly engaged heavily with Andropov and then Gorbachev, working both very hard behind the scenes at a high-levels to iron out or define the REAL issues at hand, AND worked at an executive level to put a smooth icing upon the detente of the diplomatic efforts, getting involved on details and also encouraging moderation and diplomacy.

Writing at the time, the Neocons were apoplectic with Mr. Reagan, quietly and even openly calling his ability and resolve into question in the specific matter of USSR/US diplomacy.

We can see the effect of such hard-line ONLY policies by virtue of the debacle that is the Middle East. I believe the benchmark for dealing with islamic insurgents was set over 120 years ago (about 1875-1882) by Chancellor Bismark of Prussia with respect to the Muslim terrorists/insurgents in the allied Austro-Hungarian Empire.

His solution was to initially hold secret meetings with representatives whom either knew or were actual members of the insurgency (which was both violent and more than a little disruptive towards Austrian and Prussian interests), after his diplomatic corps (Von Moltke and others), returned to Berlin, they discussed the overall grievances of insurgency in (what is today Bosnia/Herzegovina), their solution lasted for another nearly 40 years.

The solution was simplicity itself, the insurgents had about 10 demands of the Austrian government, Bismark strongly encouraged the Austrians to grant or otherwise address most - if not all - of the reasonable (reasonable defined as being in the interests of Prussia and Austria as well as the Insurgent) demands of the insurgents - as covertly or surreptitiously as possible (so as not to look too accommodating).

This left the insurgents with 2-3 hard-line intractable positions, for which there was not a great deal of support in the greater Muslim-Bosnian community. Within 6 months the insurgency was rendered ineffective through lack of popular support, thus diffusing a serious problem for an ailing ally - and serving the longer term interests of Prussia.


Similarly, Reagan's soft approach to the Soviets suggests at least the possibility that a similar multi-pronged approach would have been made towards the Iranians and perhaps even repositioning ourselves in the frame of working with our regional partners and approaching those nations which also have similar national interests in seeing terrorism not become a pan-Islamic nationalist one in nature.

This certainly would have fostered our longer term interests, we could have normalized relations with at least two nations (Syria and Iran) in light of using al Queda as a common ground issue to build up from.

Even Mr. Bush for compelled to admit that in fact the Iranians offered help to the Bush administration in fighting al Qaeda after 9/11 - this was and is anathema to the neocon and so is often not reported or reported as being a speculation. (See Imperial Hubris).

The concern then is that we have the albatross of undue influence of Israel, this tragically distorts our national interests in the region, so while it is possible that a more cohesive approach involving the interests of nations which share at least SOME of the same overall interests might have been theoretically possible, it is unlikely that this is what would have been actually performed.

However, having said that, we do know that the attack upon the towers in Beirut caused a general withdrawal from the area, something similar might has occured - very quietly from Saudi Arabia, this might have been more direct.

The actions in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Wahiristan are more simple, we clearly would have at least tried to attack the region and probably would have sent a much more concerted force, much sooner (activating one of the rapid reaction Marine contingents - which were already pre-deployed - for just such an occasion - within 48 hours or so of the attacks towards those less-hospitable sections of Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Our post-game analysis shows that Mr. Bin Ladin had already pre-evacuated Afghanistan so really an concerted / small scale raid/attack against Quetta , Khost, Jallalabad and other areas along the Afghani/Pakistani border would have been completely appropriate and necessary.

I think the overall tolerance for an active threat such as Bin Ladin indicates some combination of the following things - at the end of the day,

1. We were willing or at least incapable of actually apprehending Mr. Bin Ladin and crew.

2. Our friends in the ISI and Pakistani military were a day late and dollar short - either intentionally or not.

3. We were not completely concerned with actually apprehending Mr. Bin Ladin and crew.

Answer 2

Dear "About soMEone" :

I am NOT a Big "Ray-Gun" fan!

But .......
I would like to think that he would NOT
Invade Afganistan or engage the Wacky-
Iraqi's in an OBSCENE War !!

WE must remember that Ronnie was
Brain Damaged. This fact was hidden
from the electorate. Ray-Guns
administrative style was Delegation!
He hardly EVER played Direct Roles
in many major decisions!

Case in point was Col. Ollie North,
Admiral Poindexter & Secord, et. al.
(Iran-ContraGate Scandal!)
Ronnie gave these individuals MUCHO
"rope" to hang themselves!

RayGun remains The BEST "C" grade
Hollyweird Actor, who ever entered
the Oval Office.

Holy S*it~
where does that leave "Dubya"~
in the pecking order? Georgie Porgie
has done MUCHO Harm to our Country!
I NOW wish Ray-Gun was Prez during
9-1-1 !! I'd have had LESS Funerals
to attend for my fallen heroes!

Good luck~ "About soMEone"!
Good Blog & Good Question!

Answer 3

Who is to say ?
Many of the same members of Bush's team were in fact part of Reagan's.......so perhaps they would have proceeded with the same wreck less course of action.

In 1982, the Reagan Regime removed Iraq from the State Department's list of nations sponsoring terrorism. This enabled US corporations, including members of the military industrial complex, to capitalize on the abundant profits to be had in the Iraqi marketplace. In 1983, Ronald Reagan sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld to meet with US ally Saddam Hussein to "normalize relations" which had been terminated during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. Despite full knowledge that Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and on the Kurds of his own nation, the United States continued its cozy relationship with Saddam. The United States and its allies in Western Europe provided Hussein with military helicopters and the precursor agents necessary to manufacture the very weapons of mass destruction which later became one of the pretexts for the Neocon invasion of Iraq.

Answer 4

convey returned the great gadget so as that each physique is on a point enjoying field. Scrap tests at 7, 11 and 14; they don't help the youngsters/babies or the lecturers. it is in simple terms extra rigidity. make confident that girls are motivated into attending college with the aid of the international - and make training unfastened. Make training freed from religious bias. close all private colleges. save private agencies faraway from the doorways of faculties and close all academies in England. that is a commence.

Answer 5

The same "prudence" you mentioned, also stopped Reagan from doing anything constructive to stop the explosion of A.I.D.S.

I suspect the guy's succumbing to his eventual illness even back then and he's just waiting for Nancy to read the horoscopes on what to do.

Answer 6

nobodys going to take the time to read all that and leave an answer.

Answer 7

and what is yr question supposed to be.