"Click if you liked the 'stand up' foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and not the appeasement policy of Barack Obama," said a recent marginal "poll" on Facebook. One of my numerous cousins was among the clickers.
This is what is called a "push" poll, of course. It's akin to the "What if I told you your preferred candidate was a spouse beater and drug addict," kind of question. "Well, naturally I wouldn't support him then," the person being polled will answer, and the pollster then adds the respondent to people opposed to that candidate.
Note that the pollster doesn't actually make an accusation - it's all conditional, but the thought lingers in the target's mind - is my candidate a spouse beater and drug addict?
The "poll" on Facebook got me to thinking about foreign policy, however, and about American myth-making. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Younger Americans will have very little recollection of his years in office. Since he left the presidency he has become the very apotheosis of what a Republican president should be. He is invoked by every Republican who seeks political office, from town clerk up to president.
Why? What is there in Reagan's record that excites so much admiration? Let's examine his foreign policy and that of President Obama to see who did better.
President Reagan's partisans will immediately point out the collapse of the Soviet Union as his great achievement, and I think his military buildup and intransigence about negotiating arms deals certainly did help bring on the downfall of the USSR. One could argue as persuasively that the Communist government fell because of its own internal contradictions and because inept leadership allowed the country to become embroiled in the Afghan war and support for Marxist regimes in other places, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba. Those efforts bankrupted them and destroyed public support within the country.
The Reagan administration provided military aid to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua and the government of El Salvador, that was at least loosely allied with "death squads" which killed suspected rebels without proof, trial, or mercy.
It was a cynical policy and one that saw the world without nuance. Reagan even hosted Mujahadeen leaders in the White House and called them the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - these precursors of the Taliban.
Afghanistan, it must be said, has been a mess for thousands of years. Warring tribes, little infrastructure, and ferocious resistance to any outside influences are their hallmarks.
Not too long after Reagan left office, the government of Nicaragua, which had gained power in a bloody revolution, called an election in the expectation their party - the Sandanistas - would win easily, and then surrendered power peacefully when they lost. A peace of sorts was eventually worked out in El Salvador and a leftist revolution was thwarted - partially.
When Marxists seized power in Grenada, Reagan sent to US Army to boot out the usurpers and restore democracy. From the standpoint of power politics, the invasion also prevented the Cuban air force from building a runway there that would have been used to ferry Cuban soldiers to and from Africa.
Reagan made much of his refusal to negotiate with terrorists, but when air pirates seized a passenger airliner and began murdering Americans, he did in fact yield somewhat to them.
He sold military equipment to the radical regime in Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in defiance of Congress, then shrugged off the whole matter saying it was just one little airplane of material.
It's a mixed record, in my opinion. It's cold blooded, hardball international politics, but it did achieve some positive results.
And what of President Obama? He inherited a protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had to deal with international monetary problems and economic difficulties. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya and Syria were under assault by their own populations. He has ended the Iraq involvement though some American troops are still there. He has promised to wrap up the Afghanistan involvement on a schedule that will presumably give the client government there a chance to survive. (I'm very pessimistic about it though.)
Obama's foreign policy favored the Eqyptian revolution that ultimately succeeded, and American planes materially assisted the Libyan rebels who toppled Moammar Khadafy. Currently, he is calling for a new government in Syria, where the despot is killing his own citizens left right and center.
The Obama administration has made extensive use of drones to wreak havoc on the leaders of al-Qaida, killing some innocents in the process, and conducted the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. (Drones were not available to President Reagan.)
Obama is still trying to make nice with the duplicitous government of Pakistan. He has been trying very hard to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. A substantial part of the game involves Israel and their stated intention not to tolerate an Iranian bomb. Since Iran is a significant producer of oil, economic sanctions will not be sufficient to stop President Ahmadinajad, in my opinion.
Concerning North Korea, the Obamaites are trying to use a carrot and stick approach, with only modest success. One can only hope the suffering people of that land will soon throw off the tyranny there and achieve some measure of peace and freedom.
European nations have yawed back and forth in the last few years between conservatives preaching austerity and leftists who want to retain social programs in the face of large operating deficits and debts. I don't see any overarching strategy concerning Europe from the Obama administration.
As with the Reagan presidency, Mr. Obama has used American power to rid our country of those who threaten us. We can with significant justification call both policies ruthless and cynical. Both have had successes and failures. But I don't see any grounds to claim Reagan was steadfast and Obama has "appeased" anyone. The myth of Ronald Reagan is being fastened on the country despite the mixed record of his presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment