Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
布什是另一个里根吗?
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Since the eight Clinton years already seem like the good old days, we shouldn’t be amazed at the huge, affectionate reaction to Ronald Reagan’s passing. Reagan himself was a symbol of the good old days even while he held office. In our nostalgia, we forget how contentious the Reagan years actually were.

President Bush is often said to model himself more on Reagan than on his own father, who alienated his conservative base by raising taxes in spite of his most memorable campaign promise: “Read my lips: No new taxes!” Bush the Son and his neoconservative supporters claim the Reagan legacy as their own.

And what is that legacy? Strong defense and standing up to evil, we are told. But Reagan, despite his earnest anti-Communist rhetoric, avoided risking war with the Soviets and negotiated an arms reduction deal that basically ended the Cold War, allowing the Soviet Union to die in peace. Reagan defended the Vietnam war as a “noble cause,” but he didn’t want another. One such noble cause was plenty.

Bush the Father, in only four years, waged two wars: against Panama (you geezers out there may recall the imminent threat posed by Manuel Noriega) and Iraq. Even Bill Clinton was more bellicose than Reagan, raining bombs on Iraq and the Balkans.

When a suicide bomber killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983, Reagan had the perfect opportunity to declare “war on terrorism.” He passed. The Pentagon said emphatically that the “peace-keeping” mission was militarily futile, and Reagan yanked the U.S. forces out — to catcalls from the neoconservatives, who wanted American power to dominate the Middle East and accused him of “a failure of nerve.” But Reagan knew a no-win situation when he saw one.

Which is not to say that Reagan was a man of peace. He bombed Libya and fostered covert operations, as in Nicaragua, that might have gotten him impeached. But he also tried to maintain alliances with Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia, further enraging the neocons, despite his warm support for their favorite state, Israel. He may even have used the phrase “war on terrorism” — presidents declare war on so many things — but he never pursued it.

Fighting terrorism was only one of Reagan’s many themes. It was not a high priority. Terrorism had been making headlines since the 1970s, occurring in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. Few expected it to reach this country, but the government took precautions anyway, making air travel in America, during the Clinton years, more annoying than ever.

写入 Freedom Daily, James Bovard reminds us that Reagan took many anti-terrorist measures, most of them clandestine. But some of those who received covert American aid were terrorists themselves, if the word means anything other than 敌人。 In 1985 the CIA may have been behind a car bombing in Beirut near the home of a radical Islamic leader, killing 80 innocent people but missing its intended target. A few months earlier, the “华盛顿邮报” reported, Reagan had authorized such measures.

And after the 241 Marines were killed, Reagan ordered a U.S. battleship to shell a Lebanese village thought to harbor terrorists, killing more innocent people. I remember my shock at that time. It was murder, and my beloved Reagan had done it!

No, Reagan was no saint. And the U.S. Government is an enormous lethal power, even if a saint is running it.

But the current war on Iraq simply wasn’t Reagan’s style. Saddam Hussein was one of the Arab rulers he notoriously favored with deadly material aid during its long war with Iran; he sent Donald Rumsfeld to do the glad-handing. Without proof that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, Reagan would never have taken measures against him — especially a major war, with its attendant political risk.

Yes, Reagan was deeply affected by what the hawks disparage as “the Vietnam syndrome” — otherwise known as learning from experience. He saw Communism, not terrorism, as the great threat to the United States, but he learned to deal prudently with it, while never ceasing to condemn it in principle. Even when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner, killing a U.S. congressman and many others, he kept his head.

Love him or despise him, Ronald Reagan had something the people claiming his mantle conspicuously lack: a bit of common sense.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 乔治·W· 灌木 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论