The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
What Would Reagan Do?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

President Reagan was holding a meeting in the Cabinet Room on March 25, 1985, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes came over to me, as communications director, with a concern.

The White House was about to issue a statement on the killing of Major Arthur Nicholson, a U.S. army officer serving in East Germany. Maj. Nicholson had been shot in cold blood by a Russian soldier.

Speakes thought the president’s statement, “This violence was unjustified,” was weak. I agreed. We interrupted the president, who reread the statement, then said go ahead with it.

What lay behind this Reagan decision not to express his own and his nation’s disgust and anger at this atrocity?

Since taking office, Reagan had sought to engage Soviet leaders in negotiations, but, as he told me, “they keep dying on me.”

Two weeks earlier, on March 10, 1985, Konstantin Chernenko, the third Soviet premier in Reagan’s term, had died, and the youngest member of the Politburo, Mikhail Gorbachev, had been named to succeed him.

Believing Gorbachev had no role in the murder of Maj. Nicholson, and seeking a summit with the new Soviet leader to ease Cold War tensions, Reagan decided not to express what must have been in his heart.

Which raises a question many Republicans are asking:

What would Reagan do — in Syria, Crimea, Ukraine?

Is Sen. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, or Gov. Jeb Bush or Chris Christie the candidate most in the Reagan tradition, the gold standard for the GOP?

We cannot know what he would do, as we live in a post-Cold War world. But we do know what Reagan did.

In the battle over the Panama Canal “giveaway,” Reagan stood against Bill Buckley and much of his movement and party. “We bought it, we paid for it, it’s ours, and we’re gonna keep it,” he thundered.

The Senate agreed 2-1 with Jimmy Carter to surrender the Canal to Panama’s dictator. Reagan’s consolation prize? The presidency.

Reagan came to office declaring Vietnam “a noble cause” and determined to rebuild U.S. military might and morale, which he did in spades. His defense budgets broke the spine of a Soviet Union that could not compete with the booming America of the Reagan era.

What’s our strategy, his first National Security Council adviser Dick Allen asked him.

Replied Reagan: “We win, they lose.”

Reagan saw clearly the crucial moral dimension of the ideological struggle between communism and freedom. He called the Soviet Bloc “an evil empire.” Yet he never threatened military intervention in Eastern Europe, as some bellicose Republicans do today.

Reagan would not be rattling sabers over Crimea or Ukraine.

When Gen. Jaruzelski’s regime smashed Solidarity on Moscow’s orders, Reagan refused to put Warsaw in default on its debts. But he did deny Moscow the U.S. technology to build its Yamal pipeline to Europe.

Given Europe’s dependency today on Russian gas, a wise decision.

When the Soviets deployed triple-warhead intermediate-range missiles in Eastern Europe, the SS-20, Reagan countered with nuclear-armed Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe.

Only when Gorbachev agreed to take down all the SS-20s, did Reagan agree to bring the Pershings and cruise missiles home.

When Gadhafi blew up a Berlin discotheque full of U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the Sixth Fleet’s downing of two Libyan warplanes, Reagan sent F-111s in a reprisal raid that almost killed Gadhafi.

Ronald Reagan believed in the measured response.


He hated nuclear weapons, “those god-awful things,” he used to say, and seized on the idea of a missile defense, SDI. And while he was ready to trade down offensive missiles, when Gorbachev at Reykjavik demanded he throw the Strategic Defense Initiative into the pot, Reagan got up and walked out.
Would Reagan go into Syria? Almost surely not.

On the last day of his presidency, he told aides the worst mistake he made was putting U.S. Marines into Lebanon, where 241 Americans perished in the terror bombing of the Beirut barracks.

He had no problem working with flawed regimes, as long as they stood with us in the cause that would decide the fate of mankind.

The East-West struggle was the top priority with Ronald Reagan, which is one reason he vetoed sanctions on South Africa.

Whatever her sins, Pretoria was on our side in the main event.

But while Reagan would not challenge Moscow militarily in Central Europe, he provided weapons to anti-Communist guerrillas and freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua to bleed and break the Soviet Empire at its periphery and make them pay the same price we paid in Vietnam.

Reagan was an anti-Communist to his core, having fought them in the Screen Actors Guild in the 1940s. But he was never anti-Russian, and wanted always to keep the channels open. He ended his presidency as he had hoped, being cheered while strolling through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Ronald Reagan never wanted to be a war president, and there were no wars on Reagan’s watch. None. The Gipper was no neocon.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

Copyright 2014

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Ronald Reagan 
Hide 6 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “His defense budgets broke the spine of a Soviet Union that could not compete with the booming America of the Reagan era.”

    Ah, yes–beginning with the US’ nuclear weapons and a threatened first strike capability by SAC, though various Stealth boondoggles–war and threatened war as an economic tool of–what do they call it again?–oh yes, “Capitalism”.

    “Defense” budgets–is the author serious? Rather “offense” budgets, essentially dictated by the Military Industrial Complex.

    And the band plays on.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua”
    Whoa where has this writer been?

  3. For me the particular opinion of Mr. Buchanan means much more
    than the reference to his patron-saint President Ronald Reagan.

  4. MarkU says:

    @ Immigrant from former USSR Re: “For me the particular opinion of Mr. Buchanan means much more than the reference to his patron-saint President Ronald Reagan.”

    I agree entirely. I mean what did Reagan actually do? Snitched on some fellow actors for Joe McCarthy, supported death squads in El Salvador, funded the terrorist ‘contras’ in Nicaragua, broke some labour unions, made the rich richer at the expense of everyone else and laid the foundations for total plutocratic takeover. Also, we mustn’t forget that Reagans ‘star wars’ programme started the course of events which led to the abrogation of the ABM treaty by George W Bush and will very likely start WW3 and the end of human civilisation. It might also be noted that he was so intellectually deficient that no-one seemed to notice any difference when he got Alzheimers disease.

  5. quercus says:

    What would Reagan do? There are such things as ‘stupid’ questions and this is one of them.

    The constant allusions to Reagan by many in the Republican party are tiresome, silly, and extremely juvenile. It shouldn’t need to be said that no one can make predictions about future actions of a dead person. Even typing that preceding sentence shows how absurd it is.

    And on top of everything else, he was a human being with flaws, contradictions and weakness like the rest of the 6 billion or so on this planet, and a very ‘average’ and ‘ordinary’ human in many ways.

    So, Mr. Buchanan please move on. Reagan is dead, never to return, and the world is a different place, never to be what it was in the past.

  6. “…there were no wars on Reagan’s watch. None.” I guess an unprovoked attack on a Caribbean island called Grenada, based 100% on lies about a danger to the students at St. George’s Medical School because the Bishop regime was friendly to Cuba’s Fidel Castro, was not a “war” except under international law.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement