The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 8)

Ron Baker br> Public Administration, 1979 br> Northern Kentucky University /p>

Thank you for Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clark's article, "Would Ronald Reagan Have Attacked Iraq?" This is an important question that allows us to evaluate our current foreign policy. Having read through the article, and spent some time considering its points, I am unconvinced of its central premise that Ronald Reagan would not have attacked Iraq, nor am I convinced that attacking Iraq was wrong.

I believe the argument in the article rests on there being similarities between the threat provided by Soviet satellite nations and the threat provided by Middle Eastern countries gaining access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and using these weapons or providing these weapons to terrorists. The imposition of martial law in Poland did not increase the existing threat to United States security. Saddam Hussein's support of terrorist groups clearly threatened U.S. citizens and interests. Ronald Reagan did not need to face this threat at the magnitude that George Bush must.

The article seems to suggest the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein was to deliver Iraq to democracy as the beginning march to a utopian world order. I disagree. The war in Iraq was carried out to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein attacking U.S. interests through terrorism. Did Saddam Hussein have WMD? His nuclear capabilities were likely destroyed by President Clinton (oddly), chemical weapons have been found in small amounts, and the capabilities to produce these weapons have also been found. U.S. security has improved with Saddam Hussein removed from Iraq. Any doubts that I have about the Iraq war being not worth the costs are now being alleviated by Iran's growing threat. Can we/should we allow this threat to grow? Does anyone want to bet that we will not regret leaving this threat unchecked? In short, I view President Bush's foreign policy to be more about protecting the U.S. than I view it to be about establishing free peoples throughout the globe.

I do believe however that the President should waste no opportunities to support groups within nations such as Iraq and Iran that seek to overthrow the current governments. This was certainly something that Ronald Reagan did both through his words and deeds. Only President Bush and others in his administration know whether this was done and is currently being done in Iraq and Iran. If not, it needs to be, and can clearly be called Reaganesque. The U.S. faces imminent danger however, and time on these fronts is precious. We may not have the luxury of waiting while "rebel" groups do their work.

p>Ronald Reagan bombed Libya following the bombing of a Berlin discotheque. If I remember correctly, one American was killed, though the club was a known gathering spot for U.S. citizens. September 11, 2001 provided an attack on U.S. soil, in major American cities, in very populated targets. Three thousand Americans were killed. Toppling the governments of two nations guilty of supporting this action seems comparable to Reagan's response to the death of a single American. br> -- Troy Boone /p>

My, My, maybe Spectator's readers should write a book. I think we could do better than this:

Couple of things are different then vs. now. First, Reagan was dealing with a rational player in the strategic nuclear game. What use to either side to irradiate the apple if you intend to eat it later? Bush II is dealing with a gaggle of factious irrational players, none of which are under any central command. Second, Reagan realizing how the board was shaped simply took Khrushchev's "We will bury you..." line and said "go right ahead - if you can". The foe that Bush II faces is not so phased by delivery cost structures as a 10 year old Toyota pickup will do just as well as an ICBM for their purposes. Third, Reagan's pull out of Beirut pretty much answers the question up to a point. But keep in mind, the Beirut mission had the intent of stabilizing Lebanon. Bush II on the other hand has the unheralded task of preventing another attack on the US. This was not on Reagan's radar screen in Lebanon.

p>But if you put the equation another way. There are 10 mad fanatics each with a bomb capable of destroying your home. Each is independent and may select the time and method of their choosing to throw the bomb. If you defend and patrol you lose as it is highly unlikely that in 10 attempts at least one of the attacks is not successful. Or you may decoy a more tempting target and perform search and destroy to ferret out the attackers. Each take out reducing the attackers chance of success. Cast in that light Reagan would not hesitate to opt for the second course for he has a better chance to win. And winning is what he was always after.

topics:
Foreign Policy, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Global Warming, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Africa, Socialism, Communism, Oil