In 1980, the United States was losing the Cold War. Under President Jimmy Carter, the American economy had become a disaster -- featuring 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, gasoline lines and shortages, and the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Our national security situation was verging on the catastrophic. The anti-military left had cut the Defense budget. The Soviet Union was subsidizing massive appeasement marches in Western Europe (secret documents released after the fall of East Germany confirm that Soviet front-groups were behind the demonstrations). Soviet forces were on the offense in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
The most public humiliation was the illegal seizure of the American Embassy in Iran in 1979. Iranian militants held American diplomats as hostages in total violation of international law for 444 days. In the face of this assault on America and American citizens, Carter's policy was one of weakness and appeasement. The result was a national sense of humiliation and impotence.
Before Reagan took office, the national establishment favored a policy of "reasonableness" -- that is, they accepted the existence of the Soviet Union as a given and believed it had to be accommodated. In contrast to the "realpolitik" of the national establishment, Ronald Reagan outlined a simple, clear alternative. When asked by a reporter of his vision of the Cold War, Reagan said simply, "We win, they lose."
On March 8, 1983, Reagan offered his most forceful moral claim for this new strategy of victory in the Cold War. In a speech calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire," he defined the illegitimacy of the Soviet dictatorship. It was a speech that Natan Sharansky, then a prisoner in the Soviet Gulag, said galvanized the hopes of the prisoners and raised their morale while demoralizing the Soviet guards and undermining the authority of the Soviet system.
Two weeks later, on March 23, President Reagan outlined in a second speech the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that was designed to begin a science-and-technology race that the Soviets could not win.
America's elites were shocked by these two speeches. They ridiculed and attacked them. The State Department professionals and the foreign policy elites opposed Reagan. They were all horrified that an American President could be so bold and provocative. They would be almost as unhappy four years later when President Reagan went to Berlin and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Less than nine years after Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" and "SDI" speeches, the Soviet Union disappeared. The scale of this strategic victory and the role of President Reagan in defeating the Soviet Union are ignored by most of academic America and much of the news media. The 25th anniversary of these two speeches is a good time to set the record straight. They were wrong, and Reagan was right.
I wanted to share some audio clips of those two speeches with you. The first speech was Reagan's Address to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida on March 8, 1983. It has since been called the 'Evil Empire' speech because that's what he named the Soviet Union there. Take a listen to some of the best parts:
Clip 1: America as a torch of freedom.
Clip 2: The source of American greatness and the threat of modern day secularism.
Clip 3: The need for peace through strength.
Clip 4: Reagan calls those who demand the supremacy of the state over the individual as the focus of evil in modern world.
The second speech was Reagan's Address to the Nation on National Security from the White House Oval Office on March 23, 1983. He outlined a specific plan to launch an arms race against the Soviet Union that they could not win, based on the idea of peace through strength.
Clip 1: A strong military is the surest means to peace.
Clip 2: The U.S. does not start fights, peace can only maintained through strength.
Truly, this was some bold stuff! You know what strikes me most about it, though? If you listen to all of these, these words can be applied equally well to 2008 as to 1983! Seriously, look at some of these statements:
"I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God. Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority."
How often to we struggle against politicians who ignore the rule of law (illegal immigration, ethical deficiencies, corruption) and basic values (life and freedom)? How often do we fight against over-bearing regulations that throttle our economy and freedom (global warming)?
At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some. The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.
Remember what I blogged about recently with Obama pledging to de-nuke the world by leading America to non-nuke status first? Reagan knew this was poor policy decades ago!
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
Boy, if this doesn't sound a heckuva lot like the Sharia-governed Islamic states in today's world, I don't know what does! Of course, the one obvious difference is that while the Soviet Union sought to eliminate God altogether, radical Islam seeks to honor Allah by killing or converting everyone else in the world. It may be a different form of totalitarianism, but it's still totalitarianism bent on domination.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. "Deterrence" means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.
This is a perfect definition of deterrence. What some today don't realize is that true peace is only available through benevolent strength, which is what America offers. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and although we may influence and suggest, we do not conquer nor force other countries to bend to our will unless they attack us first (and even then, we're very slow to military action!). The terrorists themselves have echoed Reagan's theory - remember all the talk from bin Laden about the people following the 'strong horse'? That happened after Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after a handful of casualties. Bin Laden proclaimed that event proved he was the 'strong horse', which prompted a new series of attacks that culminated in 9/11.
Reagan knew it, our enemies know it...so why does the Left not get it? This is why they cannot be allowed to run the country - they refuse to acknowledge this simple reality. Their willful ignorance is extremely dangerous to all of us. Great stuff from the Gipper, and just as applicable today as it was then.
That's what happens when you base your philosophy on truths that don't change over time. As I've said before, those truths are reflected in conservatism.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
Nuclear deterrence is an overrated, outdated concept. During the Cold War, the policy made sense because there was a bipolar world who each had 1000s of nukes pointed at each other. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD--that if one side launched, the other side would launch and we'd all die) was dangerous, but helped keep any one side from trying to preemptively destroy the other.
The problem is that today, the world is no longer bipolar. There are not only 2 superpowers fighting, but rather, a number of smaller powers who lack anywhere near the destructive capacity of the arsenals of the Cold War. So, do we really need to retain 10,000 nuclear weapons poised on hair trigger alert to deter our new enemies? No. A number of reasons suggest this:
1. Many of our enemies are not nation-states. International terrorism is not particularly associated with any one nation, so the concept of deterrence is drastically weakened. Say a terrorist organization set off a nuke in NYC. Who would we really nuclear retaliate against? Their country of birth. The country(ies) they planned the attack in. Any country who harbors terrorism. The problem with large scale retaliation (i.e. the kind you get with nuclear weapons) is that it really limits your options.
2. Conventional weapons are more targeted and usable. The blunt force of a nuclear weapon is not a good instrument for targeting leadership, etc. of terrorist organizations. One of the benefits of smaller scale conventional weaponry is that it can target the people ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE for attacks, while limiting the casualties of innocents. Nukes don't have that power. They put us in a double-bind. Either we launch nukes in retaliation for a terrorist strike, probably killing millions of innocent bystanders, and likely turning much of the world even more against us. OR, we don't launch and the concept of deterrence is shot. With conventional weapons, we could launch a much more focused retaliatory strike, targeted at those actually responsible, without killing an abhorrent number of civilians. Deterrence is enhanced.
3. Even if some nukes are necessary, most are not. It's been years since I've really read about this, but there is evidence to suggest that 100 nuclear weapons may be enough to render most (if not all) of the planet uninhabitable. During the Cold War, we and the USSR had tens of thousands. We have fewer now, but we don't need all of them. Their just unnecessary, expensive and virtually useless.
4. Maintaining huge arsenals legitimizes the weapons, creating incentives for other countries to develop them. I don't understand it, but some of the attraction to "the bomb" among the Third World is the idea that it puts the country on an equal playing field with us. What kind of moral authority do we have to say "never mind that we still have thousands of nuclear weapons, you are not allowed and should not get them"? "Do as I say, not as I do" is a hard sell in international politics.
There are plenty of reasons to at least reduce (if not eliminate) our nuclear arsenals. The idea that we need to keep and enhance them is Cold War-thinking that is morally and strategically dangerous.
I can appreciate that you've put some thought into this, but I respectfully disagree. If anything, your description of the world around us (with which I would agree, by the way) lends even more strength to maintaining far more of an arsenal than anyone else. The reason is simple: we may have to fight against any number of other countries. Now, I don't think we should keep things on a 'hair trigger', nor do I think they are. But, I think it is the height of folly to think that just because we reduce our arsenal our enemies would do the same.
To address your points:
1. You're correct - our primary enemies are not nation states. However, these terrorist groups have iron-clad links with any number of nation states, and it makes sense that we would hold those nation states accountable for their part in attacks on us. That alone is a fairly significant deterrent (though clearly not enough of one, I'll grant you) - if other nations know we are serious about taking out any government that shields terrorists who kill Americans, they'll eventually run out of places to hide. It comes back to Reagan's theory of peace through strength.
2. I believe you are absolutely correct in this. If anything, the reality of our current conflict (and likely all future ones) is that we'll need surgical strike capability rather than brute force. But, I would argue that it never hurts to have an elephant gun in the back pocket - just having it doesn't mean you have to use it, but not having it when you need it could be fatal.
3. If they're already made, how can they be expensive? I question your suggestion that only 100 would make much of the planet unusable - I think that people are way too arrogant in thinking that we could actually do permanent harm to the planet. It's not nearly as fragile as some people think. For example, look at the Mt. St. Helens eruption in the 1980s. They said it would be uninhabitable for decades, but natural wildlife is now thriving there. Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Again, near-permanent disaster was forecasted, but the area is now flourishing. We can make things miserable for human life, but we're being extremely foolish if we think we can damage the planet itself.
4. Yeah, I agree that 3rd world dictators think having a nuke puts them on equal footing with us, but anyone with half a brain knows that's not true. The key is being able to get what we want without having to fire a shot. Guess who accomplished that in the Cold War? Reagan. How did he do it? Peace through strength.
I'm trying to think of a quick way to summarize my thoughts on your comment about the 'do as I say not as I do'. Hopefully I can do it right...here we go.
The reason we don't want just anyone joining the nuclear club is that these rogue/terrorist nations lack the self-control, democratic responsibility, and overall sanity to treat them as they need to be treated. With an elected government that has active participation by the people, it is extremely unlikely that a crazy nutcase would be put in control of such devastating weapons, essentially guaranteeing they would not be misused. But, in a dictatorship where the most ruthless, blood-thirsty, and aggressive wacko calls the shots, there is a very real possibility that these weapons would be abused. To paraphrase a line from Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm was talking about the danger of the park and those who created it: "They spent so much time trying to figure out if they could that they didn't bother to stop and think about if they should. They stood on the shoulders of genius without having to learn the lessons of those who started the process."
It's only a line from a movie, but I think it applies here, too.
Hopefully that makes sense. It is pure folly to think that anything but a position of strength would be a deterrent to attacks on America. History and common sense both show us clearly that it is because of our weaknesses that we have been attacked.
Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment