Re: the real meaning of Charlie Wilson's War

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:25:43 -0800 (PST), seven camerai
<cerebureaucracy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 30 2007, 3:16 am, "B'injamin Cr'amer"
<yidsrbollo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David Johnston" <da...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ejgen3p7mrs1hec2b6fp97a26k9a0gos73@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:54:48 -0800 (PST), "bvall...@xxxxxxx"
<bvall...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

1.  From the moment of the Soviet Revolution started, not one slave
state, not one Iron Curtain nation, was able to shrug the oppressive
yoke of Communist until Reagan showed up.  Why is that?

Because none of them had Gorbachev to deal with.

Well said.

Reagan did *** all to break up the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachev's party
all the way.

but, reagan was crucial in making a moral case against communism.
the liberal establishment, though anti-communist, argued that we
should deal with the USSR and coexist peacefully.

That's precisely what we are doing now.
Thumper


under a
hypothetical democratic administration in the white house in the 80s,
soviet union may or may not have unraveled. but, there would have been
far less moral and material pressure against the USSR.
what is crucial is Reagan made it a fight so that when USSR unraveled,
he could claim it as a victory of western democratic values. without
that reaganite pressure, the fall of communism would have been just a
change in the political system. but, with reagan's strong rhetoric,
fall of communism was seen as a huge moral victory for the west.
context and perception matter.

suppose nazis had won in europe in WWII. suppose there are two sides
in the US political scene. one call for pragmatism and says we should
try to co-exist peacefully with nazis running europe. tone down the
moral rhetoric and expand business and diplomatic ties, and maybe,
just maybe, nazi germany will liberalize and even crumble.
suppose another side in US politics says we should morally attack the
nazi empire as an 'evil empire'. even if US doesn't engage in war
with the Nazis during this Cold War--between Free America and Nazi
empire--, suppose this hardline anti-nazi group in the US say it's of
paramount importance to denounce as publicly and often as possible the
evil of nazism.

now, suppose nazism crumbles like communism did in 1989. had US
maintained merely a pragmatic policy, US could not have claimed any
moral victory. but, suppose US pushed and pushed and pushed morally.
then, the fall of nazism--even if due to mostly internal factors--can
partly be attributed to the moral pressure of the US.
moral pressure does matter. just look at south africa. no nation
fired a shot at south africa. it was moral pressure from around the
world that pressured south africa to abandon its apartheid policies.
so, when things did change, US could claim moral victory. suppose US
applied no moral pressure on south africa but apartheid crumbled
anyway. then, US could claim no moral victory in this matter.

also, the idea that poor economy was the reason for the fall of
communism is false. there have been worse economies than the soviet
economy which survived for decades or centuries more. ottoman empire,
the sick man of europe, took centuries to die. the ailing chinese
empire in the 19th century took a full 100 yrs to fall apart. russia
under tsar was economically a mess and backward; it lasted for
centuries. USSR under stalin saw far more economic devastation than
in the 1980s--under stalin, millions died but USSR only grew
stronger.
if soviets wanted to maintain power, they had the material means to do
so. they were short on toothpaste and toilet paper but not on tanks
and guns. north korea in the 1990s saw 10% of its population die of
starvation, yet it is still going strong.
USSR changed course not to survive--which it could have done with an
iron will--but to change its image and make piecemeal reforms.
now, why did USSR take a chance with a man like gorby? it was because
soviets wanted to put a human democratic face on communism, and why?
because of moral pressure from the west. due to its human rights
abuses--denounced in public by conservatives far more than liberals--
soviet union felt pressure to carry on piecemeal reforms in order to
save its image in the world.

without a guy like reagan at the helm, the soviet oligarchy may not
have accepted someone like gorbachev as the new leader. without
reagan, USSR still may have crumbled. but, US could not have claimed
moral victory.
suppose there's a giant dead tree in the forest. we wait and wait for
it to fall. but, it's still rooted deep in the ground to last many
decades more unless someone gives it a push. the person who pushes
the tree deserves much credit for its fall. of course, 90% of the
reason for the tree's fall was due to its dead rottenness. but, it
would not have fallen purely by its internal conditions. it's also
like a rotten tooth that's loose in the jaw. unless someone finally
yanks it out, it's not gonna fall out for a LONG time. so, the
dentist is important in this equation even though he only helped to
finish the job.
reagan saw the rotten tree of communism, had the courage to call it
rotten, and applied just enough pressure to make it fall according to
its own momentum. you may say reagan was lucky but he had the courage
to take chance with his luck.

.

Loading