Posts Tagged ‘ronald reagan’

A look back at how President Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union

Posted: November 14, 2019 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

This Saturday marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  No individual was more responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union than President Ronald Reagan,  I know liberals scoff at that notion and anyone will be able to find many politically correct revisionist articles tearing apart that historic fact.  A careful examination of the evidence will demonstrate how President Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union through a very complex plan.

The Breitbart article How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War chronicles this miraculous series of events.

Based on intelligence reports and his lifelong study, Reagan concluded that Soviet communism was cracking and ready to crumble. He first went public with his prognosis of the Soviets’ systemic weakness at his alma mater, Eureka College, in May 1982. He declared that the Soviet empire was “faltering because rigid centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement.”

One month later, in a prophetic address to the British Parliament at Westminster, Reagan said that the Soviet Union was gripped by a “great revolutionary crisis” and that a “global campaign for freedom” would ultimately prevail. He boldly predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy … will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives that:

-Committed the U.S. to “neutralizing” Soviet control over Eastern Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region.

–Adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources—financial credits, high technology, and natural gas—essential to Soviet economic survival. The directive was tantamount, explained author-economist Roger Robinson, to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

Another great read on this subject is the Heritage article Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

There is one Western leader above all others who forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, who brought down the Berlin Wall, and who ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. The one leader responsible more than any other for leading the West to victory in the Cold War is President Ronald Reagan.

The plan President Reagan implemented was one he authored before being elected to the Presidency.

In January 1977, four years before he was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan told a visitor that he had been thinking about the Cold War and he had a solution: “We win and they lose.”

It was a plan he began implementing soon after taking office,

From his first week in office, President Reagan went on the offensive against the Soviet Union. In his first presidential news conference, Reagan denounced the Soviet leadership as still dedicated to “world revolution and a one-world Socialist-Communist state.”

It is true that the Soviet Union was an economic mess, however that nation was able to produce a military that was hugely superior to ours, especially after the Carter Presidency.

Based on intelligence reports and his own analysis, the President concluded that Communism was cracking and ready to crumble. He took personal control of the new victory strategy, chairing 57 meetings of the National Security Council in his first year in the White House.

Here is the plan that President Reagan implemented.

Reagan directed his national security team to come up with the necessary tactics to implement his victory strategy. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives (NSDDs).

NSDD-32 declared that the United States would seek to “neutralize” Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region, especially in Poland.

NSDD-66 stated that it would be U.S. policy to disrupt the Soviet economy by attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources–financial credits, high technology, and natural gas. The directive was tantamount to a “secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

NSDD-75 stated that the U.S. would no longer coexist with the Soviet system but would seek to change it fundamentally. America intended to roll back Soviet influence at every opportunity.

Here are more components of the plan.

A subset of the Reagan strategy was U.S. support of pro-freedom forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia. A key decision was to supply Stinger ground-to-air missiles to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who used them to shoot down the Soviet helicopters that had kept them on the defensive for years.

The year 1983 was a critical one for President Reagan and the course of the Cold War. In March, he told a group of evangelical ministers that the Soviets “are the focus of evil in this modern world” and the masters of “an evil empire.”

The same month, the President announced that development and deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile system would be his top defense priority. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was called “Star Wars” by liberal detractors, but Soviet leader Yuri Andropov took SDI very seriously, calling it a “strike weapon” and a preparation for a U.S. nuclear attack.

Moscow’s intense opposition to SDI showed that Soviet scientists regarded the initiative not as a pipe dream but as a technological feat they could not match. A decade later, the general who headed the department of strategic analysis in the Soviet Ministry of Defense revealed what he had told the Politburo in 1983: “Not only could we not defeat SDI, SDI defeated all our possible countermeasures.”

The master stroke of the plan was this event:

In June 1987, Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and challenged the Soviet leader: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” No Western leader had ever before dared to issue such a direct challenge.

Trump Playing the Old Reagan Game with China

Posted: August 24, 2019 by datechguy in elections
Tags: , , , , ,

Back in the days when I was a Democrat I was suspicious of Ronald Reagan.  There were still anti-abortion Democrats pro-defense democrats who understood that Communism was as bad as Nazism or worse and that opposing it was a moral duty so I wasn’t quite alone but when the whole concept of Star Wars came all hell broke loose.

The entire media and a good chunk of the academic community went nuts.  The idea of a missile defense was crazy, lunacy and it would bankrupt up.  Almost nobody said it was impossible, America left hadn’t yet completely conquered academia so we weren’t at the point where we didn’t believe in ourselves yet but many claimed that such a system was not worth it because it couldn’t stop every missile.

I thought their arguments were weak, nobody said ships shouldn’t have AA guns because you couldn’t stop every attacking plane and I was in the computer field as a student and knew how good we were.  But more importantly Russia also knew how good we were and decided that they had to try to do what we were doing.

So in addition to financing the left and the protests against Star Wars (a tactic that our enemies still use with even greater effectiveness today) they tried to match us, but with no economy to speak up, and the need to prop up regimes in Cuba, South America and elsewhere it soon became apparently that to them (but not to the academic left) that they risked collapse, thus they started talking but when they were unwilling to make a fair deal Reagan to the astonishment of everyone walked way.

Five years later the Soviet Empire that guest speakers at my college and the smartest minds in media and government insisted was here to stay folded like a wet blanket.

Which brings us to Trump and China.

Like Russia China is in a spot, you have them trying to prop up our foes like the  Venezuelan tyranny and the North Koreans among others, they are short key natural resources and greasing others to keep them.

They are trying to build up their military and sinking a lot of money there as well.

They have their own Islamic issues with the Uyghurs and  despite their deal with Francis they are still having issues with the underground Catholic Church that is not as big of a sucker as he is, they still have Falun gong issues and now are dealing with revolt in Hong Kong.

Adding to that problem is a male heavy population that is unable to find a mate thanks to the effects of the now gone one child policy and a population that has now gotten used to better than the subsistence life that they once had to endure.

It’s a tough balancing act but as long as you have pliant companies willing to do your bidding and a weak United States it can be done.

But then comes Trump.

  • Suddenly he is reasserting US strength in the region at a time when neighboring countries are most afraid of your power.
  • Suddenly he is making moves on North Korea and when they launch missiles in to the sea isn’t willing to come hat in hand to China to beg them to stop.  He’s wiling to call the bluff.
  • Suddenly he is willing to put on tariffs to force fair deals and when you retaliate instead of folding he doubles down even in an election year.
  • Most importantly business’ seeing what’s going on decide that it’s a good idea to relocate to neighboring nations making both your economic and social problems worse.

Worst of all he does it knowing the same thing that Reagan did, that the powerful US economy fueled by dynamic citizens with the freedom to react and innovate, something that the Communist Chinese aren’t allowed,  can absorb the hit that tariff’s bring particularly since he’s made the country energy self sufficient.

China can not and every day this goes on China exacerbates their social problems and drains the funds needed to keep their balls in the air.

They could of course choose war,  but unfortunately for them their land forces can’t reach us and their naval and air forces are no match for ours.

And if you’re thinking nukes, well let’s say that a communist regime who loses it’s head wouldn’t last long, particularly with an unfriendly India and a ravenous Russia next door with a long memory and a score to settle.  Plus there is Tibet and the Uyghurs waiting for a chance to revolt for self determination.  Then consider what would happen if a Nuke hit DC and NYC and LA.  You would still have Democratic state governments able to function food production, energy production and more would go on unabated and despite the best efforts that our foes can buy in the green movement there are more than enough sufficient number of pipelines to keep things flowing and a giant strategic reserve in place.

And I haven’t even mentioned Taiwan.

China might hope for the defeat of Trump and they will likely put all their eggs in that basket but if that fails then their already weak bargaining position will be even worse, particularly since Trump has a “Trump” card concerning the debt of ours their currently hold.  as the old saying goes, if you own the bank $100 dollars it’s your problem, if you owe a million it’s theirs.  Multiply those numbers by a few million and you can see my point.

Furthermore there is the temperament of Trump, the longer this goes on the higher price he will demand because he understand that if this trade war goes on China as a nation will grow weaker, while we will still be in a position to at worst tread water, and at best still grow stronger, and as I said China has a bunch of enemies around them with scores to settle.

If China is smart they will make a deal now while their bargaining position is strongest and the damage done to this point is controllable.  If they are not they will put all their eggs in the NeverTrump basket where they will find plenty of Americans ready to play.

But the longer they wait the more industries will decide that it’s safer to move their manufacturing elsewhere and future manufactures will think twice before committing there.

So even if they manage to put a Democrat in office by then they will lose both in the short term and the long.

Trump and anyone who knows history understands this, which is why Democrat voters do not.

Update: I can’t believe that I forgot to mention the Chinese Pork crisis in this piece.

Doesn’t anybody remember history?

Posted: February 6, 2011 by datechguy in internet/free speech
Tags: , , , , ,

It’s one thing to not know ancient history or even history of the centuries ago. But it is another to not remember the history of just a few decades ago:

There is much debate over President Reagan because we all think of him differently. And over time, history sweetens our memories. But no matter what policy disagreements you may have had with him, you have to admire his style of politics. He embodied a spirit of bipartisanship.

He was a conservative Republican, but he understood that in order to get anything done he had to work across the aisle, which he did very effectively.

Ah yes those halcyon days of yesteryear. Before we get all teary eyed over those days of love and peace let me bring you some numbers:

97th congress:                98th Congress               99th Congress               100th Congress

House 244-191 (D)        House 272-163 (D)    House 253-182 (D)        House 258-177 (D)
Senate 53-47    (R)        Senate 55-45     (R)    Senate 53-47     (R)        Senate 55-45 (D)

 

You might recall in the lame duck session with a new majority only pending the administration felt compelled to make a deal they didn’t like.  Ronald Reagan in eight years never controlled the house and for at least 2 years did not have a majority in the senate to back him up.  Reagan compromised with democrats on spending, tax cuts and treaties not because he loved bipartisanship but because he never had the votes to do anything else.

When Dianne Feinstein wishes for the age of bipartisanship, she is actually pining for the days of democratic control and a cowed conservatism.  She counts on American’s ignorance of history to pull the deception off.

 

The president who stood by our side

Posted: February 5, 2011 by datechguy in internet/free speech, media, opinion/news, personal
Tags: , , , ,

At the time Ronald Reagan was elected I was a democrat who was a hawk on defense.

My greatest influence was a professor Ed Thomas. He had a great love of history and of original documents. He used to say about Ronald Reagan. “I’m afraid of Ronald Reagan”. He seemed to think that Reagan would turn the cold war into a hot one. I was more worried about his economic policies myself

Hindsight is 2020 and looking back now it seems clear that such a worry was unfounded but at the time a lot of people didn’t know what would come. The best experts thought the Soviets were a lot stronger than they were. Reagan had a better grasp of both the international and the economic situation than others did.

It took me a long time to figure this out. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and early 90’s that I understood just how great Reagan was.

Yesterday on the phones of talk radio , seminar callers armed with Media Matters Talking points were spinning Reagan on both National shows (such as Rush) and on local shows (Howie Carr) with a “why do conservatives love Reagan when he did xyz” trying to paint him as “not conservative”.

Their attempts to co-op the memory of Reagan are understandable, they have been unable to change our memory of the Reagan years and have also not managed to make us forget what they thought of him, to wit:

It should never be forgotten that the Left hated Reagan just as lustily as they hated George W. Bush, and with some of the same venomous affectations, such as the reductio ad Hitlerum. The key difference is that in Reagan’s years there was no Internet with which to magnify these derangements, and the 24-hour cable-news cycle was in its infancy. But the signs were certainly abundant. In 1982, the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London held a vote for the most hated people of all time, with the result being: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula. Democratic congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was trying to replace “the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” A desperate Jimmy Carter charged that Reagan was engaging in “stirrings of hate” in the 1980 campaign. Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (now a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.” In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: “The United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”

And in discussing Reagan’s greatest acknowledged achievement — ending the Cold War — liberals conveniently omit that they opposed him at every turn. Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the “evil empire” speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative? Historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” “What is the world to think,” New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, “when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?”

Or as Jonah Goldberg puts it the only good conservative is a dead one.

While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . ”

Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.

Goldberg is spot on. It is a simple attempt to use Reagan to hit the conservatives of today.

I would suggest skipping the tributes from liberals for they come from the same sentiment as this scene from Braveheart (script via corkey.net):

Robert: Does anyone know his politics?

Craig: No, but his weight with the commoners can unbalance everything. The Balliols will kiss his arse so we must.

The American people honor Reagan’s memory so the left which hates him and always has hated him must too or at least seem to honor him. Ignore them and instead concentrate on one like this from No Sheeples here.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, perhaps the greatest in my lifetime, I wish I appreciated him more when he was in power.

Update: Interesting Palin/Reagan note from Byron York

Lee Edwards, a Reagan biographer and fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was in the audience and took note of the fact that Palin was speaking to a strongly conservative group at the Ranch Center. She likely wouldn’t be invited to speak to a more general audience at the Reagan Library, Edwards said, “because she’s not a member of the establishment, and they’re not comfortable with her.”

“The irony,” Edwards continued, “is that neither was Reagan.”

Older Entries
Newer Entries