Steven -- thanks for the response. Hard to dispute much of what you say but it still smacks a bit of "throwing the book" at Reagan just because he was the one guy not coming to a full stop when you looked up from your do-nut.
Reagan's personal feelings toward Marcos were hardly remarkable. Given their ages, anti-communist personas and personal demeanor (even, perhaps, the strong influence of their wives). Consider human nature (really goofy at times) -- Just as we've seen a kind of predictable hysteria surrounding Kennedy's demise, it is also common for close associates and family to honestly not believe that "Good Ol' Joe" really could have done what he was doing when he got caught red handed.
In the case of flawed PI elections you later referred to, I can only say that the U.S. has yet to figure out how "clean up" a Teamster election.
As for the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, it was on the scene, under one name or another, long before Kirkpatrick and Reagan -- it was integral to the Cold War from day one. In our lifetimes, U.S. Presidents have clinked glasses with far worse scum than Marcos. Doesn't make it right (may not even make it wrong) but it doesn't distinguish RR from other Oval Office occupants.
There were two notable exceptions to Cold War policy (aside from the Diem hit, that was hoped to usher in "the moderate opposition" and more effective anti-communists) -- Cuba and Iran. We have not been happy with either result. Both led to a hardening of our resolve. To digress briefly -- it will be interesting to see what happens in Kosovo now that the evil Slobo has been run out of Dodge.
The Cold War was an epic struggle. Many sacrificed, many suffered and we walked closer to apocalypse that we care to imagine. In many ways it was more of a "world war" than the two shoot-em-ups that preceded it. As in most wars, "civilian" casualties were significant, personal and tragic.
One always gets the feeling (depending on whether they are the hand holding the stick or the pointy end of the stick) that the "other" end doesn't get it. One group frustrates because it can't seem to grasp the "big picture" and the other group embitters because they can't see (don't care about) the little picture.
I believe we were right to "fight" and I'm happy we prevailed (AND -- think the present administration is willfully pissing away the win).
When I wrote last night,I thought of including a comment about the rather spectacular moral decay associated with Angeles City (Clark) and Olongapo (Subic). I'm glad you brought it up. "Freakish" is a good description. Even so, the conditions that existed there represented an "encampment/camp follower culture" that's existed since history's been recorded. I have a real hard time including this in a Reagan indictment. FWIW,I've known a number of military vets with wives from the PI -- funny (not funny, really) how all the husbands claim their wives are natives of Baguio.
Finding "racism" around the old PI military bases may be an understatement -- almost more like "speciesism".
Please don't construe my observations as a view that the U.S. did all the right things in the PI. I just don't see Reagan as a particular bad guy in the picture.
Hope you know, none of my comments intended to offend you or contradict what you saw with your own eyes. |
