By the time Reagan became the Prez, the former USSR was ripe for a collapse.
I don't think we Reagan-supporters would deny that. However, it is also equally true that they were far from being ripe for collapse militarily. They had tremendous military strength due to their nuclear arsenal. With impending economic collapse, Soviet communism (and, hence, the leadership's power structure) was threatened. The corrupt leadership, in a threated position and blinded by their maniacal communist ideology might well have used that military arsenal as a desperate means to stay in power and to try to breathe new life into their communist ideology. Reagan's military buildup--combined with his resolute character--ensured that they knew this would be a losing proposition. Might the Reagan buildup have actually prevented a nuclear war with the collapsing USSR? The world will never know. However, I can say one thing for sure, I'd much rather have gone through that transition in history with a strong military and resolute Commander-In-Chief, than with a weak military and a vacillating Commander-In-Chief. Peace through weakness works only if you don't have anything anyone else wants, or if you're willing to give up what you have (including your principles) in order to buy peace.
Reagan also had the prescience to understand that Soviet communism's days were numbered. At the time when everyone was running around wringing their hands about Soviet communism, he said that it was "destined for the ash heap of history." Liberals today are trying to discredit Reagan by saying the collapse was already imminent, yet these are the same folks who were ringing their hands back then. The truth is that they have 20-20 hindsight, and Reagan--it turns out--had 20-20 foresight.
You may not agree with Reagan's policies, but give him the credit he's due. |
