Reagan, in the end, was in charge.
As X pointed out - and X, BTW, is no liberal - some of the things he said left people wondering if he was fully in charge of his own mind.
In the end, Marcos left, without a civil war. Isn't that a good thing?
Yes, and Reagan actually told him that he ought to leave. After a combined team from State, CIA, and Defense pleaded with him for several days, insisting that if we gave Marcos the slightest grounds for hope of American support we would provoke a civil war, which the communists (the greatest beneficiary of Marcos' rule) would probably win. Reagan wanted, badly, to stick with his old buddy, as he had for years, despite overwhelming evidence that Marcos was leading the country direct to perdition, and that the credit line which we were holding open against all reason (without political interference the IMF should have cut off credit by 1980) was plunging the country into irrecoverable debt.
I really don't think you want to argue this one with me. If you think you do, acquire a copy of Raymond Bonner's book Waltzing With a Dictator, and have a good read first. Then we'll talk about it. |
