Reflecting on President Ronald Reagan's legacy, students of political science may examine his choices between negotiation and escalation and in favor of building communication links to other nations and leaders. As world leaders gather today to lay to rest the 40th President, one may look back on his decisions to negotiate with adversaries to end conflicts, despite those who urged uncompromising escalation to win them.
In an opinion piece in today's New York Times, C.U.N.Y. Prof. John Diggins reminds us that back in 1985, "neoconservatives" like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld were counselling Reagon to escalate rather than negotiate with the Soviet Union over its military involvement in Afghanistan. He points to George Shultz's memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph," for evidence of the disconnect between President Reagan and the hawks in his administration, and notes the insistence of then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney that perestroika and glasnost were deceptive traps, intended to mislead the West, and would be followed by even greater Soviet militancy.
In the end, Mikhail Gorbachev did "tear down this wall," and led the "Evil Empire" into its self-transformation. In Washington today, he pays his respects to his former adversary.
History may have already shown us the relative wisdom of Ronald Reagan and his neoconservative counsellors. World leaders could do worse than learn from the instincts of "The Great Communicator."
See: The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: How Reagan Beat the Neocons
Posted by dougsimpson at June 11, 2004 08:09 AM | TrackBack