US Foreign policy during the Cold War-especially during the Reagan admin

i find it hysterically funny when people count the fall of the USSR as one of Reagan's "accomplishments."

first of all, most of the collapse of the USSR was due to internal pressures and factors.

second, the world would be a better and safer place overall right now if the USSR were still around, in one piece, and reforming. not to diminish the negatives of the Soviet system, but if the Eastern bloc had at least remained stable while it started moving away from Stalinism, we wouldn't have had the Balkan wars and Central Asia would be a hell of a lot more organized right now. Moreover, the threat of nuclear terrorism would not be so pronounced, since the Soviets could have maintained a tighter rein on its nukes.

if Reagan had followed a policy more focused on engagement and increasing economic ties with the Soviets, rather than his quite frankly insane push into a global arms race, and helped the Soviets work slowly into the free world, we would all be a lot better off.

moreover, his Central American policy was brutal and completely discredited us internationally and poisoned our relationships with much of our own hemisphere. the whole Iran-Contra thing by itself should have been enough to throw his whole inner circle in jail. his domestic and economic policies were disastrous, in that they completely gutted the middle class and necessary barriers to increasing transfer of wealth to the top 1%, and created a momentary surge of wealth which we are still paying for now in the form of our massive debt.

 

As much as I love my country, and I do support the Iraqi war. I dont understand how people can sit back and hope Saddam just goes away, instead of doing what is right (I have yet to hear anybody say he should be left alone, or allowed to stay in power). Sometimes doing what is right, should take precedence over everything else. It seems to me that when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the way the world viewed America died with him. (regardless of how view JFK). THe US become involved in Vietnam, and thanks to LBJ, the army dicked around and permanently stained America in the worlds eyes. Then came the crisis of the 70's, the only real good thing about this decade is Star Wars premeired, that and both my girlfriend and I were born

As far as Reagan, he did a pretty good job of selling America in the post-Vietnam era. Desert Storm brought us back to the limelight, then Awesome Bill (a pretty good domestics president) screwed it up with Somalia, and that and the end of the cold war, when the world seems to view no need for the US to be a military super power anymore has put the American image in a constant downward spiral. Without the Soviet Union to counter our everymove, it makes us seem pushy.

Has anyone else noticed increased tensions with China, and the EU over silly things, and all parties are guilty of this. Makes you wonder before long will there be another Cold War? A three way campaign pitting China-Europe-America against each other? Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel doesn't it?

 

actually, if you go back in history you'll see that we had a perfect chance to tell the russians about the atom bomb (They would have eventually found out anyways) and make them our allies.

but instead we only delayed the eventual outcome by a few years and began the arms race imo.

so reagan only was dealing with what he had and did pretty well in the end.

 

Without bloodshed? Yeah, tell that to Latin America.

(I realize I didn't live it, and I'm grateful. I can't imagine what you guys went through, and it just makes me sick to even read about it. I was reading these books and my nails were digging into the chair arms, I was so upset).

The guy thought we could recall torpedoes sent from submarines! He said trees cause pollution!

Or making up stories about welfare Caddies, buying vodka with foodstamps, etc.

Of course, a lot of his appointees were even worse-Bork, Watt, Casey, etc.

If an actor had to run for prez-why couldn't it have been Gregory Peck?

 

My aunt sent me this joke. A little comic relief.................

The Saudi Ambassador meets President Bush at a White House dinner. They
> shake hands and exchange pleasantries. As they are saying good-bye, the
> Saudi says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in
> America."
> President Bush says "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to help you,
> I
> will do."
> The Saudi whispers "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there
> are
> Russians, and Blacks, and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset.
> He
> doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."
> President Bush laughs and leans toward the Saudi, and whispers back,
> "That's because it takes place in the future...."

 

America's cold war foreign policy was stated as supporting democracy throughout the world. Americas cold war foreign policy in reality was supporting right wing democracies and opposing left wing democracies.

 

at Tiershon_Fett!


(note to the humor-impaired: this is just a joke!)

 

LMAO @ Tiershon.

Reagan's Latin American policy was an utter joke, and that's being kind here. I have relatives who were killed by the US supported group.

moreover, his Central American policy was brutal and completely discredited us internationally and poisoned our relationships with much of our own hemisphere.

Utterly true. Many countries in Central America were occupied at one time or another by the US (whether by Marines or whatnot), then left alone, then occupied again. Much of this didn't happen in Reagan's time, but he didn't exactly do things to fix it, either. There is a healthy (and in many cases, deserved) mistrust with this country in this hemisphere.

He was responsible, by funding rebel groups to defeat Marxist goverments or anarchists, for the deaths of thousands, if not more.


I agree, Jedi-Xen, that Bill dropped the ball on Somalia and Rwanda. Much of his foreign policy was good (Northern Ireland and trying to bring peace to Israel), but he did some major bad stuff too. Just so everyone knows that a liberal can criticize a liberal, not just a conservative.

George Jr. hasn't helped matters any with his war talk. I've noticed for quite a while the tensions between the EU and the US, not to mention parts of Asia.

Gerhart Schroder was rudely treated for not jumping on to the "Let's Oust Saddam" Bandwagon. He wasn't congratulated on his re-election as Chancellor, and Secretary Rumsfeld practically snubbed him this week during talks in Belgium. (I think it was Belgium )

Regardless of disagreement, shouldn't you at least treat your allies with some politeness? If you want to build a coalition (which you damn well should, instead of trying to go it alone), you need to act more respectfully.

George Bush needs to go back to Diplomacy 101.


EDIT: Markups.

 

Ronald Reagan was THE MAN.

Remember what happened to Libya after the Lockerbie (sp?) plane bombing.

Man, imagine what the Gipper would've done to Osama and Co., Iraq and the rest of those terrorist nations around the Middle East.

We didn't hear anything from Libya again, did we? And France (of course) didn't let us use their air space then to fly over, so why should we care what they think now in our war on terror?

GWB needs to get kahunas like good ol Ronnie.

 

There's an Arab in Star Trek

 

Without bloodshed? Yeah, tell that to Latin America.

(I realize I didn't live it, and I'm grateful. I can't imagine what you guys went through, and it just makes me sick to even read about it. I was reading these books and my nails were digging into the chair arms, I was so upset).

The guy thought we could recall torpedoes sent from submarines! He said trees cause pollution!

Or making up stories about welfare Caddies, buying vodka with foodstamps, etc.

Of course, a lot of his appointees were even worse-Bork, Watt, Casey, etc.

If an actor had to run for prez-why couldn't it have been Gregory Peck?


Guinastasia I would really be interested in you posting information on the books you read about how evil Reagan was in Latin America.

I would just like a standard bibliography or maybe some information on the writers of the books to see if I can identify some biases. Being a history grad myself I'm always interested in reviewing some books.

Thank you.

 

Let's talk about the ignorance of taliban dudes and terrorists that are bred to hate us.

Ahem. It's unwise to assume they are ignorant because they're not like you, and it's, well, haughty to assume they're bred to hate you. It's not that these guys wake up, yawn, take a slash, and spin a globe, their fingers stopping on America and go "I'm gonna hate me some Americans!" They have reasons behind it, and mostly it's Americans tell them how to live and what's best for them. I've stated this time and time again; this attitude is creating Anti-Americanism.

Guinastasia, anything by Walter la Feber is brilliant! The guy knows where it's at.

When you talk of Reagan, you have to consider two things he did:
1) He deliberately ignored the Congress to fund a war of insurrection in a foreign country, and thus subverted their internationally recognised right to self-determination*, and
2) Broke a US Government trade sanction with Iran (who celebrate Death to America day) to sell arms to fund the contras when Congress cut the funding to the project.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think Reagan, North, Clarridge etc got off pretty light. Mind you, Clinton did many illegal things too. The world needs JFK!

E_S

 

Hey Darthpigfeet, at the moment I'm reading Duane "Dewey" Clarridge's autobiography, "A Spy for All Seasons." If you didn't know, Dewey was the CIA's Latin American division chief, and I'm reading through his back-slapping account of his time in Nicaragua. He's real proud over the mining of the harbor at Corintino. Now, I don't care much for Communists (nor fascists) but mining their harbor in order to facilitate a decline in trade and intimidate people into staying away from Nicaragua. If al-Qaeda did that to US ports it'd be called terrorism, just remember that.
The problem with US policy in the cold war was not so much the actual supporting of fascist government who had good anticommunist credentials - it's what's called Blowback. Blowback describes unintended consequences of foriegn policy initatives. Middle Eastern antipathy towards the US is a result of blowback - like Iran, who had to live through the unpopular Shah regime (and his deadly SAVAK secret police) before revolting against "Western imperialism". Someone noted earlier, that America is reaping what it sowed. This is true. The US Government [allegedly] trained mujhadeen fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in the art of guerilla warfare and explosives. Those same people formed the core leadership of groups like al-Qaeda, or became instructors "for the cause" in such hotspots as the Bekaa valley.
All this wouldn't be so bad if there was even a hint of change of attitude in the wind. I don't believe there is. I guess, though, the memory of taxation without representation is selective and the lessons learnt can't be employed elsewhere?

E_S

 

ARGH! STupid thing ate my post!

Okay, there was also the Eisenhower administration's overthrow of the government in Guatemala-and that wasn't about democracy vs. communism-it was about protecting the interests of the United Fruit Company.

DarthPigFeet-if you'll go to the first page, you'll see I listed THREE books. In addition, I'll give you two more:

The Clothes Have No Emperor: A Chronicle of the American 80s by Paul Slansky

Man of the House: the Life and Political Memoirs of Thomas P. O'Neill by Tip O'Neill with William Novak.

 

I'm sorry. I'm going blind. I didn't see those. Thank you.

 

There has been some discussion in this thread regarding the support of dictators and other unsavory characters by the U.S. government. Yes, the U.S. government has done this and continues to do it...and rightly so!

In the realm of foreign relations, the object is for a government -- any government -- to act in its own self-interests. In the case of consensual governments like that in the United States, the government's foreign policy, by extension, should serve the interests of its citizens.

What some folks don't seem to understand is that, unlike a classroom course in politics or philosophy, the real world often presents only a choice between bad and worse, not between bad and good. When a government starts engaging in moral exhibitionism and stops engaging in realpolitik, the result is tragic. The result is terrible. The result is...the Carter administration.

Jimmy Carter saw that the Shah of Iran, a Middle East ally of the United States for 20 years, was a corrupt autocrat. Listening to his heart and not to his intellect, Carter started demanding that the Shah release political prisoners (including known terrorists), allow anti-government demonstrations, and make other concessions, otherwise the U.S. would withhold vital military aid and training.

As a result of this misguided policy, the corrupt and autocratic Shah was indeed replaced...by a much, much worse dictatorial theocracy led by Ruhollah Khomeini and supported by the Soviet Union. This precipitated the American hostage crisis that eventually destroyed Carter's presidency. This sort of mindless, emotion-driven "thinking" was not unique to President Carter: similar policies in American history proved equally disasterous in pre-Mao China and in pre-Castro Cuba.

Today, the Bush administration supports Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf. The reason is that there are no viable alternatives right now to having Mr. Musharraf in control of a nuclear Pakistan that are in the United States' interests. I'm sure Bush would be applauded by the political left if he pointed out that the recent Pakistani "elections" were a sham and insisted upon true democracy in the country. Of course, when a Taliban-like, Islamofascist regime with ties to terrorist groups assumed control, I'm sure the formerly-applauding liberals would not be falling over each other to assume blame and responsibility for their shortsightedness.

Yes, during the Cold War America did support some anti-Soviet dictators, but not because we wanted to or because we deluded ourselves into believing that they were good people. We did it because in foreign policy, unlike political science courses, you can't take the test again in summer school if you fail.

 

Well said.

 

The taliban have legitamite reason to hate us? This is the biggest joke I have ever heard. I'll admit that our country hasn't always had the best of foriegn policy. And sometimes tourists in foriegn countries make Americans look bad.

But people like the Taliban and Osama bin Laden use the excuse that this is all because of some terrible thing America has done. Well it isn't. They are just power hungry monsters. Why do they want to destroy America? Is it to create some sort of Islamic Utopia? I'm guessing if what they want to do is anything like Afganistan was under them, it is not going to be a utopia.

 

Really, ChicagoCubs? The Taliban didn't, but they didn't do much outside house Usama did he? It's also dangerous to assume Usama bin Laden is the only threat out there. Ever heard of Imad Mugniyah? I don't agree with any terrorists actions but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that at least in their minds, they have a bone to pick with Uncle Sam.

As for rsterling's post;
1) No, it's not the object; it's the expected reality. The object of foreign relations is to actually facilitate mutually beneficial agreements; the reality is accepted that states will act in their self interest.
2) You may agree with the policies of supporting dictators over democracies; in my book that's borderline fascist (but that's only my opinion ). It wouldn't be so bad if the US would drop this crap about democracy, self-determination and freedom. No one believes America is about these three things, so they can drop the act, it fooled noone.
3) Basically, nations have a right to self-determination and to impede that right falls squarely within the realms of Imperialism. Thus, America was an imperialist power. For example, when America destroyed a democratically elected regime in Guatemala in 1956, and replaced it with the thuggish Carlos Castillo Armas, they did so for the finanical gain of a fruit company. They violated their own mandate, several UN conventions they were a party to, such as Human Rights charters, and set the cause of democracy back a couple of decades. And then, there is still celebration of the American War of Independence, is there not? Ah, the inherent hypocrisy.

Now, let's talk blowback, shall we? Blowback could best be described in this analogy - let's assume the playground bully, whom we'll call Amerigo Vespuci, picks on a variety of kids in said playground. One day, a victim picks up a rock and throws it at Amerigo, hitting him on the back of the head. In fact, he wasn't even looking when it was thrown. That's blowback; the unintended [negative] consequences of foreign policy. There's a book about it too, called (funnily enough) "Blowback".

Sterling, you make reference to Iran. Calling the Shah a corrupt autocrat is true; but unpopular, repressive wimp is probably fairer. Let's not forget that the secret police who tortured even suspected dissidents, SAVAK, were trained by the CIA. Let's not also forget that the nationalist president, Mossadeq, was overthrown so the ousted Shah could be returned. So, you've got an unpopular, technically-illegitimate, repressive leader who is then ousted by an Islamic Revolution, which <surprise> hates America. And you're telling me that supporting dictators was a good idea? Come on man, it is a daft policy. In fact, Iran is the case study of "blowback" - Washington never intended for Khomeni, or the Embassy siege - but they never accounted for the possibility either. That's my contention with American foriegn policy - this assumed impunity which can only be expressed through cowardly acts. Aggreived people know that they can't challenge America conventionally - militarily no one could compete, and it's not like the US can't argue it's way out of court, like with Nicaragua - so they respond the only way they can - under the belt, in a cowardly manner. I just hope that the attitude in Washington changes to accomdate this fact. It didn't after 9/11, except to get more belligerent. Supprting regimes with bad human rights records won't be forgotten by the affected, I could guarantee it.

E_S

 

If anything, LeFeber pointed out the folly of "our best interests"-it only breeds misery.

If the Russian Tsars had allowed more freedom, they would not have lost their thrones, nor would the Soviets have come to power.

If we treated people decently, we wouldn't have to worry about Marxist revolutions-people wouldn't be interested. They become interested out of misery and desparation.

 

"They didn't do much outside house Usama."

That would be reason enough for me. However, they weren't exactly innocent in other areas. How about their treatment of women? What about the execution of homosexuals? What about the destruction of Buddist statues? What about their treatment of all of those who weren't Muslims? The Taliban were evil people. Afganistan and the world are better off now that they are out of power.

What possible reason does the Taliban or bin Laden have for hating the US?

I am not assuming Osama is the only threat out there. All terrorist threats should be taken care of.

 

ChicagoCubs, the Saudis housed him from time to time. Washington did not act becayse they were worried about upsetting the Saudis.
The reason Usama, and indeed most of these terrorists hate the US, is because they see the US as a corrupt power that does not hesitate to impose it's will on countries to further it's economic gain. Which, to an extent is true; the US has imposed it's will on countries to further it's own hegemony. Terrorists believe that America is a threat to their identity, a threat to their belief structure, and that instances like Iran and Iraq only help to confirm this. There are thousands of Vahabi-tainted Qu'ran reasons, but I'm going to ignore those - we can't change them. However, many are also young, angry, disillusioned and faced with the prospect of no future - as TIME noted in Saudi Arabia. However true this reality may be, it is largely the assumed fault of the Americans in their minds. And who better find solace that Usama Bin Laden.

Also, and perhaps simply, they want America out of the lands of Islam.

E_S

 

I will agree that Osama and others can try to give reasons why it is alright to attack America. However, I do not believe that they have any kind of legimate reason to hate the US.

Why is it that Afganistan is in poverty? My guess is that the Soviet invasion had something to do with it. The repressive regime of the Tabliban probably didn't help the economy either.

My guess is that Osama doesn't even belive this crap that is put out there about America being the cause of all of their problems. The ONLY reason he could have for hating the US is that the US is the last superpower in the world. Thus, it is an easy target for him to rally uneducated, poor, radicals around. He sees the US as a threat to his dreams of an Islamic Super-state, a state based on the way Afganistan was only a few months ago.