Hi Steven -- I've been thinking about your response.
Neither of us seem likely to alter our opinion of Reagan. I've enjoyed the exchange and trust your patience in considering the following comments about your comments about my comments about your comments....
I can't imagine the Reagan administration (or any other -- except, maybe, Carter's) calling the rotten Marcos election "rotten". To do so would have encouraged ALL parties opposing Marcos. And, no, I don't think that would have been a good thing.
You described the "unarmed moderate opposition" as "the only hope" for the country. Sincere as I know you are, I suggest that those on the armed left and armed right were equally convinced that they were the only hope for the country.
And, aside from any personal affinity that may have existed between Reagan and Marcos, I'm sure the aftermath of our withdrawing support for the Shah weighed on the president's mind. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't, and all that.
I'm not sure what form "standing for democracy" might have taken. The absolute last thing the U.S. wanted to do in the eighties was become party to another civil war in Asia.
I think you are pushing too far into the background the fact that the first U.S. priority then was trying to prevent the Soviets from gaining a decisive advantage in the region.
Clark was not vital to our military posture but Subic's loss at the time would have been devastating -- our surface navy would have largely been pushed all the way back to Pearl. Just as good fortune may have averted chaos in the PI, good fortune (in Soviet retrenchment) also made Subic's eventual loss something less than a catastrophe.
Although we clearly disagree, I am saddened that you believe Reagan was a coward and a disgrace. I can only imagine that you may have endured a great personal loss that you think Reagan may have prevented by extraordinary personal intervention.
My ref. in the case of Iran was to the Shah.
Re. cold war combatants who are little better off than before, I would ask that you cite examples. I would be glad to comment. Ditto proxies. I will say that the situation we left the South Vietnamese and some Laotians in shamed us. The stay of funding by the congress resulted in the Paris peace accords being a virtual invitation for the communists to roll south.
No argument that the environment around PI bases was sordid. The only way the governments of either country could have ended the situation was to restrict military personnel to base. Tough to tell a kid who's been rolling around in a smelly ship for several months that he has to "stay in his room" when he comes ashore.
Also tough to expect young guys not to spend a few bucks for something being actively sold for a few bucks. It has been thus with every "occupying force" in history. It was a fact after the war in Japan, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Thailand and certainly in the Philippines long BEFORE RR was elected to office.
For the record -- should my remarks seem to imply that I am or ever was a member of the Navy -- the answer is negative.
Hope you're having an enjoyable day. Let's see -- mid July -- the afternoon high should be about 71 degrees, relative humidity, 20 percent and no rain or wind in the foreseeable future :-)
|
