Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (91455)	11/28/2000 11:21:15 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769669

Well, the interesting thing is that there is something to the conservative criticism of detente, to the extent that there was a danger of excessive "normalization" of the status quo. The more aggressive policy of Reagan was better. However, there are some caveats. First, the strategic triangulation was simply a plus, by exploiting division in the communist camp and complicating the calculations of two potential adversaries. Second, the ability to aid cultural thaw, and thus encourage dissidents through cultural exchange, was a plus. Third, detente was always meant to be a strong doctrine, and the political turmoil consequent upon Watergate weakened it. A tit- for- tat element, and bargaining through strength, was always supposed to be an element, and, instead, it lost its bearings, and developed an undue urgency to sign agreements and maintain the relationship despite adventurism. Reagan, in a sense, put detente back on track, by combating Soviet adventurism and European neutralism, and yet being willing to work with Gorbachev when the Soviets appeared to be responding. Thus, I would say that detente was a good idea that, due to domestic political considerations, failed in the follow through, and needed the additional element of robust tit- for- tat strategic competition to get back on track, and actually move the Soviet Union beyond the status quo.......