Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall!
The news today tells me the Israelis and Palestinians are about to declare a truce. It’s been a long time coming, and could eventually be a watershed event akin to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps there may even come a moment when Bush challenges Sharon to “tear down this wall” that is being built along the west bank border. But, will liberals view this as a positive event in the Bush presidency? History would suggest not.
When Reagan was elected back in 1980, critics stated that we would enter a new dark period in the U.S./Soviet cold war. After all, Reagan was a hawk who had little ability to empathize with the plight of the Russians. His strong-arm tactics would further freeze relations, and the Cold War would deepen as never before.
That’s not exactly how it went. In fact, Reagan’s strategy of out-spending the cash-strapped Soviets paved the way for a softening of their stance. The Berlin wall came down, the Soviet empire broke apart, and democracy was brought to Moscow.
Now, fifteen years later, liberals are trying to pretend that Reagan was “in the right place at the right time.” That Reagan was just lucky enough to come into the Presidency when Gorbachev was coming into power in Russia. That Reagan was occupying the White House when reformers were occupying Red Square.
But revisionists can’t change history that fast. We live now in an age where nearly everything done or said by a politician is recorded on video. And in the aftermath of the Cold War, the players in its collapse stood up and stated, unequivocally that Reagan’s arms strategy was the driving force behind the fall of the wall.
A documentary aired in the past year in which the major players of the final Cold War act were interviewed about the collapse of the Soviet system. American politicians and military officials were interviewed, as were Gorbachev, along with the major hard-line and reformist politburo members, and the highest-ranking Soviet military officers. When the Americans were asked about this strategy, their answer was that Reagan recognized the Soviet economic system was on the verge of collapse. By escalating the arms race, he would force them into a difficult choice: try to keep up, and risk revolt by a hungry population; or risk losing grip on satellite nations as the subordinate countries recognized waning Soviet might; or reform. One by one, from each general to every politician to Gorbachev himself, stated it was this strategy, and Reagan’s unwavering commitment to it that forced them into making the difficult decisions. The Soviets knew they needed reform, and the real final battle to end the Cold War was an internal one for them, as they struggled with how much reform to introduce and how quickly to implement it.
Cut to 2005. Afghanistan has held free elections for he first time in decades. In Iraq, despite threats of death, millions of people lined up at polling places to cast the first real vote there in fifty years. Saudi Arabia is now holding open elections. While not yet open to women, and only for municipal offices, there is little doubt, even in Saudi Arabia itself, that further democratic reforms will be implemented soon. And With Abbas now in power in Palestine, there is real hope for a lasting peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Is there chance for peace and real democracy in the Middle East?
Of course, if democracy thrives in the Middle East, the Democrats will try to tell us that Bush had nothing to do with it, that he was simply “in the right place at the right time.” They will tell us that he had no control over Sharon and Abbas coming to power, that it was only a matter of time before the Saudis implemented democratic reforms. But the truth of the matter is his steadfast refusal to recognize Arafat helped the Palestinian people see that real peace lies not in suicide bombings, but in dialog. And the burgeoning democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq are a direct result of his policies following the 9/11 attacks. And pressures brought on by these democracies, and from the U.S. directly have pushed the Saudis to think about democracy in their own nation.
This is not to say Bush has single-handedly brought democracy to the world. There are many people who have contributed to the growth of democracy in the region. But the liberals will want to tell us that Bush was just along for the ride. When they try to tell us this, America – and it will happen – don’t let them fool you. Bush may not be your favorite president, but don’t ever let them lie to you and say that he did not accomplish this through his steadfast belief in freedom and democracy.
- The Red Oasis
When Reagan was elected back in 1980, critics stated that we would enter a new dark period in the U.S./Soviet cold war. After all, Reagan was a hawk who had little ability to empathize with the plight of the Russians. His strong-arm tactics would further freeze relations, and the Cold War would deepen as never before.
That’s not exactly how it went. In fact, Reagan’s strategy of out-spending the cash-strapped Soviets paved the way for a softening of their stance. The Berlin wall came down, the Soviet empire broke apart, and democracy was brought to Moscow.
Now, fifteen years later, liberals are trying to pretend that Reagan was “in the right place at the right time.” That Reagan was just lucky enough to come into the Presidency when Gorbachev was coming into power in Russia. That Reagan was occupying the White House when reformers were occupying Red Square.
But revisionists can’t change history that fast. We live now in an age where nearly everything done or said by a politician is recorded on video. And in the aftermath of the Cold War, the players in its collapse stood up and stated, unequivocally that Reagan’s arms strategy was the driving force behind the fall of the wall.
A documentary aired in the past year in which the major players of the final Cold War act were interviewed about the collapse of the Soviet system. American politicians and military officials were interviewed, as were Gorbachev, along with the major hard-line and reformist politburo members, and the highest-ranking Soviet military officers. When the Americans were asked about this strategy, their answer was that Reagan recognized the Soviet economic system was on the verge of collapse. By escalating the arms race, he would force them into a difficult choice: try to keep up, and risk revolt by a hungry population; or risk losing grip on satellite nations as the subordinate countries recognized waning Soviet might; or reform. One by one, from each general to every politician to Gorbachev himself, stated it was this strategy, and Reagan’s unwavering commitment to it that forced them into making the difficult decisions. The Soviets knew they needed reform, and the real final battle to end the Cold War was an internal one for them, as they struggled with how much reform to introduce and how quickly to implement it.
Cut to 2005. Afghanistan has held free elections for he first time in decades. In Iraq, despite threats of death, millions of people lined up at polling places to cast the first real vote there in fifty years. Saudi Arabia is now holding open elections. While not yet open to women, and only for municipal offices, there is little doubt, even in Saudi Arabia itself, that further democratic reforms will be implemented soon. And With Abbas now in power in Palestine, there is real hope for a lasting peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Is there chance for peace and real democracy in the Middle East?
Of course, if democracy thrives in the Middle East, the Democrats will try to tell us that Bush had nothing to do with it, that he was simply “in the right place at the right time.” They will tell us that he had no control over Sharon and Abbas coming to power, that it was only a matter of time before the Saudis implemented democratic reforms. But the truth of the matter is his steadfast refusal to recognize Arafat helped the Palestinian people see that real peace lies not in suicide bombings, but in dialog. And the burgeoning democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq are a direct result of his policies following the 9/11 attacks. And pressures brought on by these democracies, and from the U.S. directly have pushed the Saudis to think about democracy in their own nation.
This is not to say Bush has single-handedly brought democracy to the world. There are many people who have contributed to the growth of democracy in the region. But the liberals will want to tell us that Bush was just along for the ride. When they try to tell us this, America – and it will happen – don’t let them fool you. Bush may not be your favorite president, but don’t ever let them lie to you and say that he did not accomplish this through his steadfast belief in freedom and democracy.
- The Red Oasis
posted by Red Oasis at 11:04 AM
<< Home