Well, for one thing we lived under the threat of massive nuclear conflagration. And, a whole lot of people were living under dictatorships who now live in freedom.
Sam, it is truly touching to learn that your dearest aims are world peace and freedom for all. That has not always been evident (to me) from your hawkish and unilateralist stance on matters of defense and foreign policy.
Let me simply say that as I see it, we have not yet overcome the threat of nuclear war. To me there seems to be a greater likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, say, in India and Pakistan (much though I don’t expect it) than there ever was that the US and Russia would decide to lob nuclear weapons at each other in a massive nuclear conflagration (at least, say, after the Cuban Missile crisis).
So I can only regret that the close of the Cold War did so little to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (And I regret the shortsightedness of the Bush administration’s policies today.) And I can only regret that US and European foreign policy during the Cold War and after did so little towards cultivating an internationalist approach to nation-building, and that US Cold War policies, in particular, (from Carter on) did so much to aggravate matters in, for example, Afghanistan.
At the same time, I can only regret that the “freedom” currently enjoyed by the great majority of Russians does not include the freedom to live as long and as well in a material sense as they did under the ailing Soviet system. That most Russians today are poorer and less healthy than they were under the communists is hardly something to brag about.
As Amartya Sen has written, “freedom” is much more than a matter of formal rights (important though these are); it is the freedom to cultivate a life one values that most people want. I believe firmly that had a more left-thinking US aided the Russian transition to a market economy–as the US helped post-WW II Europe and Japan to rebuild their war-ravaged economies–things would have been far better for the Russians, and far better for world peace.
So, I reject your belief that Reagan/Thatcher-type hardlining was primarily responsible for the collapse of the Soviet system; and I doubly reject the implication that things would have been worse for the world had left thinking predominated.
Even were you able to prove (as it is more or less impossible to do) that Reagan’s actions sped-up the Soviet collapse, what was the rush? The vital issue wasthe quality of the aftermath, not the speed of the collapse. As you yourself have said, the main purpose to ending the Cold War was to reduce the threat of war, and to promote the cause of freedom. Yet war and the threat of more war, including nuclear war, seems very much with us today and the world (as the realists predicted) is, in many respects, a less stable place than during the Cold War.
As to freedom–well, I think the US and the West in general could have helped in much more productive, stabilizing, and just ways: economically in Russia, and economically, politically and socially in areas including the Middle East, Afghanistan, parts of Africa and Latin and South America.
So I’ll keep my leftist outlook and thank you very much for your post ;).
Um, that should have been Latin America, lest you wondering what part of South America can’t be designated that way!
See, this is an example of the fundamental disconnect between the right and the left. Do you honestly think that ‘hawks’ are not interested in peace and freedom for all?
While I don’t doubt that there are some on the right who secretly hope for war so that they can use all those fun toys (just as there is a small minority on the left that secretly desires a communist state), the vast majority of ‘hawks’ desire peace just as much as the ‘doves’, but they believe in the maxim, “The best way to assure peace is to prepare for war.” This has been Israel’s position for 50 years, and it has kept them out of war since 1973. If Israel were weaker, such that the Arab world thought it had a chance to defeat it, then it would have had to fight many more wars since.
To many ‘hawks’, we see the philosophy of appeasement to tyrants as being fundamentally flawed. When peace-loving, free people keep offering concessions to those who seek war and slavery, the end result is more war and slavery. We learned that in the years leading up to WWII if it wasn’t self-evident already. Hitler chose to go to war because he honestly felt that he could take the territory he wanted and still avoid an all-out war against the free world. And he had plenty of evidence that that would be the case: The world blinked when he annexed the Sudetenland, American peace protestors and isolationists were making lots of noise, and Neville Chamberlain negotiated away a lot of Nazi excesses in an attempt to gain a lasting peace.
Do you believe that Hitler would have continued the war if the U.S. and Britain would have started arming earlier and had stood up to his earlier agressive actions? If Hitler had known that he would be facing the free world, he might have backed down.
Another maxim of the ‘hawks’ is that war is an absolute last resort, but once engaged, it should be fought with one goal: To secure the aims of the war as quickly as possible. Appeasers typically see war as another branch of diplomacy. They’ll start one, then offer to cease-fire or negotiate rules of conflict in an attempt to achieve diplomatic success. That was the approach in Vietnam, and it was a disaster.
‘Hawks’ tend to take a longer view - if your enemies know that once engaged in warfare you will settle for nothing less than total victory, then they have more of an incentive to prevent things from getting that far. The appeasers who try to use war as a bargaining chip increase the likelihood that it will be used because the enemies of your country believe that war can always be stopped before it gets too far. And people in your own country are less likely to threaten war other than in the most serious of circumstances. The threat of war, then, becomes a very powerful diplomatic tool of last resort. We’re beginning to see that today with Saddam. He has finally been convinced that the U.S. intends to destroy him, and therefore he is starting to offer concessions for the first time in maybe 8 years.
Countries are not attacked for being too strong. They are attacked for being weak. Negotiations are not enhanced by making yourself weak - the most successful diplomacy always occurs when you have the legitimate threat of overwhelming military strength to back it up. That’s why Reagan was so successful in getting the Soviets to engage in the largest nuclear disarmament in history - he bargained from a position of strength.
So please feel free to argue with me in terms of strategy and tactics, but you go over the line when you suggest that somehow those on my side of the fence are not just as sincere in the desire for peace in the world.
Good God, Sam, can you please be less banal? And can you possibly pay attention to what’s been said and stay on topic?
For the second time–we’re not talking about “appeasement”–and we’re certainly not talking about appeasing Hitler.
As to the one actual response you did make: “Do you honestly think that ‘hawks’ are not interested in peace and freedom for all”
Let me answer this question in this most useful way I can imagine. Right now I think war is being unnecessarily fomented and for reasons that, IMO, make no long-term sense. To me that’s warmongering and it matters very little if warmongerers take the position that it will be good for peace in the long run. I think they’re wrong. (And it’s interesting how little they do take that position, in any case.)
As to freedom for all–unilateral exercise of power on the part of the US does not a freer world make. Sorry.
“So please feel free to argue with me in terms of strategy and tactics, but you go over the line when you suggest that somehow those on my side of the fence are not just as sincere in the desire for peace in the world.”
I engaged in some sarcasm at your expense when I said your views were “touching.” I think you mistook that for some kind pronouncement that I believed you to be scheming to blow up the world. I’m sure you’re very sincere about the “good” of what you believe, Sam; indeed, I’ve never doubted it. So I apologize if my sarcasm got in the way of your addressing the very substantive points that I made.
To re-sum: This thread has involved talk of the Cold War and the aftermath. You’d alleged a rightwing triumph for Reagan/Thatcher and impugned what a left position might have achieved during that period. I countered your view.
Sigh. Let me repeat your quote:
See, the way I read that is that it’s not ‘always evident’ that my desire is world peace and freedom for all. I think anyone else reading that paragraph would come to the same conclusion.
So if you didn’t mean to say that, why not just admit it was a cheap shot and you were wrong? Instead, you accuse me of being ‘banal’, and not of not paying attention and staying on target. On the contrary, my message was a direct rebuttal of the above statement.
If you don’t want your little cheap shots to distract us from the conversation, how about next time you just refrain from making them, hmmn?
Sam: “So if you didn’t mean to say that, why not just admit it was a cheap shot and you were wrong?”
From my most recent post:
"I engaged in some sarcasm at your expense when I said your views were “touching.” I think you mistook that for some kind pronouncement that I believed you to be scheming to blow up the world. I’m sure you’re very sincere about the “good” of what you believe, Sam; indeed, I’ve never doubted it. So I apologize if my sarcasm got in the way of your addressing the very substantive points that I made." Emphases added.
Well, Sam, since you’re asking for an apology that I already offered, should I assume that you have no other rebuttal for my criticism of your views on the Cold War?
Q: What were the proximate causes of the Soviet Union’s collapse?
A: Unrest in the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and southern Soviet republics.
Q: And the less proximate causes?
A: Chernobyl and the Armenian earthquake. Before that, Gorby’s circle was intent on reforming the Soviet system. After those 2 disasters - and after witnessing the system’s incompetent response to them - the intelligentsia concluded that the system was unreformable.
Over the longer term, the Soviet system was doomed to inefficiencies and decline. The only question that remained was when some reformers would gain sufficient power to first attempt reform and then give up on it.
What role did Reagan play? Reagan successfully delayed the rise of the reformers. When Brezhnef died in 1982, he was replaced by the relatively reform-minded Andropov. Still, as a former KGB head, we really can’t expect too much of the guy.
When Andropov died in 1984, the Soviet elite had a choice. They could take a risk with this young fella Gorbachev. Or they could go backwards by appointing a member of the old guard. Threatened by Reagan’s bellicose rhetoric and the largest expansion of military spending in US peacetime history, they chose the safe course and appointed Chernenko. Any attempt at reform was delayed until Chernenko died in 1985.
The Soviet’s refusal to put down uprisings in the Baltics and Eastern Europe was due more to a lack of will than a tactical inability to do so. And it was these later events that led to the Soviet Union’s demise, not any sort of economic collapse that supposedly might have been induced by military spending.
If any American can take credit for the collapse of the USSR, I’d give the award to George Soros, who quietly gave material support (eg Xerox machines), to various Eastern European organizations during the 1980s.
snort Radical hypothesis: The Soviet Union collapsed largely due to internal reasons. It was well know during the 1980s that the Soviets were entirely capable of devising methods of circumventing the Star Wars defense system, as then conceived.
And maybe I missed something: what exactly does Thatcher have to do with this? Are you alluding to her support for basing cruise missiles in Europe? Do you really think that this is anything other than a side issue (vis a vis the Soviet Union’s collapse, not whether this was a strategically sound idea)?
Above, I see that you concede the importance of luck, and point out that Andropov could have lived for another 15 years (and that Soviet reform could have been postponed for much longer). I agree and think the relevant issue is the extent to which US / European policy could aid or inhibit the rise of the Soviet reformers at the margin.
One facet of this OP that always amuses me is that it assumes the US economy did not pay a price for the arms race that may or may not have contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Can you say deficit? remember the last time there was a surplus tricky dick was in the White House. Can you rmember tbills at what 17, 18 19% and inflation was close behind. Anyhoo, carry on with your regularly scheduled debate.
To be fair, numerous folks who support the notion that we “spent the U.S.S.R. to destruction” freely acknowledge that the deficit was the result; they simply believe that it was a good trade. (Sometimes expressed as “Money well spent.”) No one has persuaded me that the deficit was necessary, but it should be noted that only the most cretinous of Reagan supporters do not recognize the relationship.
(William Safire once made a comment along the lines that is was a “cheap” price to pay.)
Ya know, the OP’s question is (at least theoretically) one that can be answered, or at least informed, by facts. Has anyone looked at the Red Army’s budget from 1981-1991 and checked whether (a) there was a large increase that (b) was not attributable to the fighting in Afghanistan?
Yes, I know that this may be a difficult exercise, given the problems the Soviets had with internal budgeting and accounting, but there is probably something out there.
Sua