The Falklands War showed the determination and military superiority of the West - little Britain sent a small fleet half way around the world and won. This was an immense morale-booster. And Margaret Thatcher defeated the communist-run and Soviet-influenced if not funded unions.
Reagan’s support for the Afghans helped them blow away the myth of the invincibility of the Red Army. People stopped being afraid of it.
More simply the West stood up to the Soviet Union and refused to kowtow any more.
One important point that is often overlooked is that neither Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher were in office when the Soviet Union collapsed. Their supporters give them retroactive credit, saying that they initiated ideas during their terms of office that later led to a decline of communism. But if this is the case, one can plausibly argue that Jimmy Carter and James Callaghan deserve an equal share of the credit.
And consider the logic of the arms race theory that Reagan supporters hold. It’s based on the premises that Reagan had a plan; he would increase American military spending in order to force the Soviets to also increase their military spending. This would cause economic turmoil and lead to the collapse of the Soviet government. The logic of this argument requires the belief that increased military spending must cause a nation to become weaker. But generally these same people argue that American military spending makes America stronger not weaker. Wasn’t there a concern that increased Soviet military spending would make the Soviet Union stronger not weaker?
I don’t think there is much doubt that this was Reagans plan. Whether it was a wise plan or not is another question (it all seemed to work out so I suppose one could say it was wise based on that), but it was certainly what he had in mind.
As to the rest of your question, the CIA had a pretty good idea of how stable financially the old Soviet Union was. IIRC pre-Reagan they were actually trying to cut their defense spending because they realized the need to put money into other things to keep their system going. By pushing them to spend more than they could afford on defense (while spending what we, the US, could maintain) the result would eventually drive them over the brink. If you strip away everything and maximize your military over everything else, eventually your system will collapse from within. One has but to look at North Korea today to see that heavy spending on the military, if it goes beyond what you can afford, doesn’t make a nation ‘stronger’, if by stronger you mean in the sense of a powerful nation.
-XT
Military spending was increased in the 1980’s in response to several major foreign policy threats, some of which concerned the Soviets. The cite I provided shows that the spending was affordable when measured as a share of GDP, and undeniably made our country stronger. The fact that the Soviets couldn’t keep up is just a nice side benefit, although there are indications now that Reagan was thinking in these terms as far back as 1963, when he mentioned it in a speech.
The Soviets had a weaker command-style economy, and their military was more manpower intensive because of a lack of technological improvements compared to the West. That made for not only a more expensive military in real terms (two ships where one would do in the American Navy, for instance) but also a tremendous burden on the economy, as my cites showing Soviet military spending as a share of GDP proved.
The Soviets knew that in an out-and-out arms race, they would never be able to outproduce America and the West. Furthermore, the technology gap was only widening at this point, and industrial espionage was faltering because the Americans were salting the earth with lots of fake plans for stealth technology and submarine quieting. The Soviets wasted lots of time and money with these.
Due credit should be given to Gorbachev for his reforms and his restraint when it all came apart, but it should be noted that the Politburo chose a younger and untried leader precisely because times were desperate and new ideas were needed. And a lot of this sense of desperation the Soviets faced at the time can be credited to Reagan, Thatcher, and the pope.
Thanks for carrying my water in this thread, Mr. Moto.
Another reason that Reagan increased military spending was that it was necessary simply from a self-defense point of view. From the time the Vietnam war ended through the Carter administration, the military was nowhere near the top of the priority list.
Also, since there can be as much as a decade between research and development to deployment, the success of the United States in Gulf War 1 can be directly credited to the Reagan buildup. All those wonderful laser-guided munitions were developed from SDI research…mocked by some as “Star Wars”.
To be totally honest, One of the reasons I started this thread in anticipation of the mental gymnastics required to simultaneously credit the Pope and discount Reagan for being involved in the same enterprise. So far, I haven’t been disappointed.
It would be enormously helpful to see any documentation, or insider reminiscences even, that Reagan did indeed plan to defeat the USSR by outspending it. I was very much alive and aware at the time, and I recall nothing of the sort - rather, it seemed clear he was girding up for the final great battle between Good and Evil. The Commies were being fought wherever he saw them pop up in the Hall of Mirrors, Central America being a popular area for that, and one which left a legacy of US-sanctioned oppression and torture in its wake. That had squat to do with the USSR. Funding was lavished on military programs that had nothing to do with forcing the USSR to respond (reactivating WW2 battleships? Huh?). His SecDef, once known as Cap the Knife for his ruthless management, was renicknamed Cap the Ladle.
Or could it be “mental gymnastics” to look back at what happened, try to find ways to give credit to the man for foreseeing it, and infer that that must have been his plan? MM, you’ve cited numbers, but not contemporaneous strategy. xtisme, you take that as given, but can you cite it?
Gorbachev’s reforms were domestically oriented, perestroika being oriented toward shifting the economy away from the military and more toward the production of consumer goods. Glasnost wasn’t economically oriented at all, but simple humanistic reform. Can Reagan’s sabre-rattling be credited with that, or do the pressures from the humanists look like a more direct causal link?
faith, this is the first time I’ve been told that Argentina was a Communist puppet state. Or, for that matter, that the Afghan resistance would have surrendered if they hadn’t had some Stinger missiles.
Evil One, it’s mighty impressive how well Clinton’s military did in the Iraq war, isn’t it?
Elvis, if you want to get into the effect of the Clinton administration on the military, that is a whole different subject. Very briefly, the military succeeded in spite of his efforts rather than because of them. Because Clinton didn’t hesitate to use the military for UN peacekeeping, etc, yet refused to increase the funding to go with the increased use, people bailed out in droves. That increased the pressure, known inside the military as “Operational Tempo” and made it more difficult to do the jobs they were given.
Allow me to anticipate. Is Operational Tempo" high now because of Iraq? Yes. But the difference is that Bush is a popular Commander In Chief, while Clinton most certainly was not. That makes a difference in morale, which is a huge factor in efficiency and retention.
Can you find me examples of people in the military who don’t like Bush? Of course. But that won’t change the fact that most of the military returned the famous “loathing” Clinton spoke of for the military in his youth.
What connection does that have to the Soviet Union/Communism exactly?
I’m certain I (or someone) could dig up a cite or two. What would you be willing to accept? I didn’t realize anyone seriously doubted this was Reagans strategy…there are myriad references to it if you do a quick google search. Usually the debate centers more around how effective (or wise) this course was, with pro-ponents of Reagans strategy pointing to the results and detractors pointing out how it could have gone VERY badly wrong (or pointing out that the soviet economy was already in decline before Reagan, and that while what he did might have sped things up, the old Soviet Union was already headed toward collapse)…and the we were lucky to dodge the bullet.
-XT
Just for laughs, since I know a lot of folks use this, here is what wikipedia has to say on it:
They go on to say that they doubt it had that large an effect (and point out that the Soviets didn’t attempt to follow suit as far as the Star Wars program went, which is only partially true. The Soviets didn’t attempt to build a similar system, but IIRC they DID attempt to beef up their nuclear delivery systems to get around the perceived defense…all while negotiating arms reduction), but that wasn’t what you asked me. Its pretty clear this WAS Reagan’s intent…to basically spend them into collapse by forcing them into an escalating arms race they couldn’t keep up with, especially considering their economy was strained long BEFORE Reagan was even the president.
-XT
Little Britain? Even though the sun had set on the British Empire by that time, the British Navy has a top notch reputation. The Argentines had to realize that if the British decided to strike back, they were screwed.
Second, that was NOT a demonstration against communism-the exact opposite, in fact. The Argentinian regime of Galtieri was notoriously anti-communist-it was a brutal dictatorship. Not to mention, the Argentinians were an ally of the US-Galtieri was trained by the US military, IIRC.
They were simply counting on the Brits not caring about the tiny Falkland islands, but because Britain needed a serious morale boost, they went ahead with it and won. But the whole idea of GREAT BRITAIN being a naval nobody is laughable, to say the least. Haven’t you ever heard the lyrics to “Rule Britannia”? Britannia rules the waves?
I think in military terms, Guinastasia , the Falklands was a lot more of a close run thing than you credit (although we’re straying off topic here). One exocet on Hermes or Invincible and we were essentially screwed. Also, Naval supperiority was one thing, but we had a land assault at the end of a 6000 mile supply line going on. If the Argentinians had landed decent troops, instead of poorly equiped and motivated conscripts, everything could have gone quickly pear-shaped.
Well, that’s true. It’s just that the idea of “plucky little Britain, the underdog” is completely laughable.
You may be right, I was young at the time and it may be clear as day to those who were paying attention at the time that this was Reagan’s plan. But for my benefit, a cite would be nice. Surely on of his chiefs of staff, Bush I, his NSA or Reagan himself must’ve confirmed that this was in fact discussed as a strategy, politicians and the like after all are never shy to take credit. Googling gives me nothing but proof by repetition from various blogs, and pointing out the fact that the US and USSR were spending a lot of money on defense during the 80’s.
Also, any sort of cite that the USSR despaired at the defeat of Argintina by Britain would, well…, it would really suprise me.
Who in this thread is holding that the pope is more responsible for the fall of the USSR then Reagan?
Unfortunately it wasn’t. Do you have any idea about the difficulty of operating on a 8000-mile supply chain? Things might easily have been different if the troopship had got hit or had Argentina sent out a battle group. Or sent out their aircraft in force? Of course, fortunately, we sank the Belgrano, and their aircraft carrier stayed more or less in port. Casdave fought in that war. My uncle was there too.
But the thing is, there was a general malaise in the West, and Britain’s victory in the Falklands stopped that dead.
I was around back in the 80’s. And I don’t recall any talk about how the Reagan era military buildup was intended as a form of economic warfare. Everyone back then took it at its face value: the United States was increasing military spending because we regarded the Soviets as a strong enemy not one on the verge of collapse. It was a reasonable response to a credible belief.
Then just a few years later, the world saw how hollow the Soviet threat had been. There were inevitably going to be some talk about how all that money we just spent to counter a threat we now knew was mostly a bluff might have been used differently (or perhaps, in keeping with other conservative ideals, not been spend at all). So the people that had been arguing for military spending did a 180 and said it was justified for the exact opposite reasons they had been claiming. Call me cynical but I have my suspicions.
And being as Margaret Thatcher was brought into the discussion, where is the conservative outrage over her decision to hand over six million British subjects to the Communists in exchange for favorable trade agreements?
Here’s two clues: firstly, she wasn’t in power in 1997 and secondly the treaty was originally negotiated over 100 years ago.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m certain I (or someone) could dig up a cite or two. What would you be willing to accept?
[Brando Voice]Whaddaya got?[/BV]
All post hoc, aren’t they? Including your Wikipedia cite. What about anything said by him or his decisionmakers at the time? That would be evidence that it was his actual strategy.
The debate among those who already accept that premise, perhaps. Gotta get out more.