Let's talk Reagan again...

Sunday is (or would be) his 100th birthday. Papers and networks across the land are doing specials and articles about the man and the myth that he has become. The HBO is doing one (that Ryan probably won't like) and the History Channel is doing one (that Ryan probably will like). PBS is doing one, but I'm not counting that because it is actually about the influence that Nancy Reagan had, and not about Ron himself... which is as asinine a premise for a Reagan documentary as I can imagine.

What made Reagan a great President, in my opinion, was that he completely changed the way US foreign policy viewed our role as a "superpower". I have actually heard it said, by liberals of my own acquaintance, that the Cold War ended during the Nixon administration and the coming of detente. I'm no Reagan apologist, and I really try to base my opinions of the man on rational fact rather than nostalgic recollections... but to hear these words come from a person that is old enough to remember the era AND the man smacks me of pure revisionist views.

At a fundamental, basic level, there was no difference between the foreign policies of Nixon, Ford or Carter... all were structured around the premise that the Soviets needed only to be contained in their efforts to spread Leninist communism across the globe. The details might have changed a bit, but the basic operating paradigm was the same from 1968 to 1980. Let's look at those years, and see what "changed" in that era to give the impression that the Cold War was ending BEFORE 1980, shall we?

Number one on that list has to be detente. "Detente" is, by its very definition, a change from the political strategy of "containment". It meant an easing of relations between the two superpowers, rather than our trying to contain the other while it tried to out-pace us and expand its influence and ideology around the globe.

I suppose that, in the interest of honesty and rational discussion, I'd have to say that there was an easing of relations. Starting with Nixon, the US made concession after concession to the Soviets, culminating in the SALT I and SALT II treaties. We agreed to massive reductions in our ability to project force through nuclear means, we limited our conventional forces (both land and sea) to existing numbers in Europe/North Atlantic, and we allowed greater numbers of Soviet forces to "off set" American technological advantages (either perceived or real). We provided subsidized grain shipments to the USSR and her satellite states when local or regional crops failed to provide adequate supply (meaning the US taxpayer was paying to feed Soviet citizens when the USSR couldn't). We watched, alarmed but unmoved, as country after country fell to Soviet-style revolutions and uprisings (all sponsored in one way or another by Soviet arms/munitions/supplies): South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, South Yemen, and Afghanistan all collapsed into Soviet-style regimes within the decade of the 1970s alone, and all without much more than a whimper from the US Government. Well-funded Soviet-style parties were formed and made great headway in nations such as Turkey, Italy, Greece, Egypt, India, Ceylon, Madagascar, Spain, Morocco, and Libya... all under the umbrella of "detente".

I'm sorry, folks... but I can't see how anyone could defend "detente" as a functional SUCCESS in foreign policy. The fact that the Soviets saw as much success as they did in the 70s is purely and solely because of detente... nothing they DID changed, it was simply the US changing the way it dealt with the Soviets that allowed such an expansion of Soviet influence. They didn't fight harder, we simply stopped fighting.

Reagan changed that. There were still aggressive acts by despotic states against Western democracies... the Falklands War strikes me as a good example, as does the invasion by Cuba of Grenada... and the traditional hot-spots of the Middle East remained troublesome... Beirut jumps to mind... but all-in-all, once Reagan's "doctrine" of a stronger US presence across the globe went into full effect, the Soviets soon realized just how tightly they had drawn the noose around their neck.

I'm not typically a fan of quoting Ronnie... but I can't help myself here. I don't recall the exact speech, but I do remember him saying that he had lived through four wars that America had fought in, and NONE OF THEM were started because America was STRONG, but all were WON because America was strong. If we count Vietnam as a "loss" then it was because we were NOT STRONG ENOUGH. He said that when America is economically strong, then we are unbeatable in any theater, any conflict, and any fight. His strategy for making America economically strong worked, from beginning to end... and we are still coming to grips with that today.

My criticism of those that want to "beatify" Reagan is that not everything he did is applicable to today's global stage. Ryan's mantra that "deficit spending to win a war" is a good example: Reagan spent money like it was going out of style because he knew the Soviets couldn't keep up... their centralized system of economic planning wouldn't allow it to succeed. Hearing that same phrasing used during the Bush years (and today, even) seems less than applicable, though. The War on Terror is not a war in the same sense that the Cold War was... there is no single, bloated "evil empire" spewing out terrorism and terrorists across the globe the way the Soviets were pumping out arms and supplies to communist wannabes.

It is one thing to ensure that we have a strong military that is ready to respond with over-whelming force to events such as the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, or 9-11-01... but I'm not sure it needs to be massive deficit spending that accomplishes that. I'm not saying Ryan says it does, either... he mentioned a stream-lined contract system to ensure fair costs to military procurements, in fact... but many in today's conservative political machine DO seem to be advocating that, to the detriment of the entire conservative movement. If it is determined that a return to the Reagan model of a reduction in the size of government GROWTH (say 10% per year) is what this country needs to recover from the Great Recession... then Defense will need to be ready to see a 10% reduction in ITS rate of growth, too. Period. To me, any argument to the contrary is simply giving voice to the "special interests" that favor the right side of the aisle.

Thoughts?