What do you think?
Rate this book
Reagan's War: The Epic Story of his Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
A meticulously researched and penetrating analysis of the Cold War, and the man who ended it. Peter Schweizer delves into the origins of Ronald Reagan’s vision of America, and documents his consistent, aggressive belief in confronting the Soviet Union diplomatically, economically, and militarily.
Ronald Reagan is often dismissed as an “amiable dunce,” a genial actor who simply mouthed whatever slogans his right-wing puppet masters put in front of him. Reagan’s War brilliantly overturns this myth. Drawing on private diaries dating from Reagan’s days as an actor and extending through his presidency, Peter Schweizer, a well-known historian of the Cold War, shows that Reagan’s fervent anticommunism marked every era of his life and was the driving force behind his policies as president.
Schweizer explores Reagan’s involvement with anticommunist liberals in Hollywood and his role as a secret informer for the FBI. Reagan’s outspoken criticism of d?tente in the late 1960s and his forceful advocacy for the overthrow of the USSR drew the attention of Soviet officials, who began a KGB file on him when he was still governor of California. By the time he was elected president, they viewed him as a serious threat to their interests. Reagan’s War shows just how right they were, presenting compelling evidence that Reagan personally mapped out and directed a campaign to bankrupt the Soviet Union and wage an economic and political war against Moscow.
In telling the story of Reagan’s ultimate triumph, Schweizer also brings to light dozens of previously unknown facts about the Cold War, based on secret documents obtained from archives in Russia, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the United States. Among his many startling revelations are Kissinger’s private deals with Soviet leaders that protected his own political viability while allowing the Soviets to pursue their goals within their own sphere; a North Korean and East German plot to assassinate Reagan in 1983; Reagan’s secret funding of Solidarity in Poland; and the behind-the-scenes support Soviets and East Germans provided for European and American peace movements, as well as their clandestine contacts with U.S. government officials.
A fresh, often startling look at Ronald Reagan and his central role in winning the war for global dominance in the 1980s, Reagan’s Wa r is a major work of twentieth-century history.
Ronald Reagan is often dismissed as an “amiable dunce,” a genial actor who simply mouthed whatever slogans his right-wing puppet masters put in front of him. Reagan’s War brilliantly overturns this myth. Drawing on private diaries dating from Reagan’s days as an actor and extending through his presidency, Peter Schweizer, a well-known historian of the Cold War, shows that Reagan’s fervent anticommunism marked every era of his life and was the driving force behind his policies as president.
Schweizer explores Reagan’s involvement with anticommunist liberals in Hollywood and his role as a secret informer for the FBI. Reagan’s outspoken criticism of d?tente in the late 1960s and his forceful advocacy for the overthrow of the USSR drew the attention of Soviet officials, who began a KGB file on him when he was still governor of California. By the time he was elected president, they viewed him as a serious threat to their interests. Reagan’s War shows just how right they were, presenting compelling evidence that Reagan personally mapped out and directed a campaign to bankrupt the Soviet Union and wage an economic and political war against Moscow.
In telling the story of Reagan’s ultimate triumph, Schweizer also brings to light dozens of previously unknown facts about the Cold War, based on secret documents obtained from archives in Russia, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the United States. Among his many startling revelations are Kissinger’s private deals with Soviet leaders that protected his own political viability while allowing the Soviets to pursue their goals within their own sphere; a North Korean and East German plot to assassinate Reagan in 1983; Reagan’s secret funding of Solidarity in Poland; and the behind-the-scenes support Soviets and East Germans provided for European and American peace movements, as well as their clandestine contacts with U.S. government officials.
A fresh, often startling look at Ronald Reagan and his central role in winning the war for global dominance in the 1980s, Reagan’s Wa r is a major work of twentieth-century history.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2002
About the author
Peter Schweizer
47 books350 followersPETER SCHWEIZER is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2008-9 he served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting and he is a former consultant to NBC News. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. His books include The Bushes, Reagan's War, and Do as I Say, Not as I Do.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 24, 2016
Steve Bannon, now a senior advisor to President-Elect Trump, has a film on his resume that excited some folks, called In the Face of Evil. The film was apparently based on a book by Peter Schweizer—this book in fact. It took some doing, but I managed to get my hands on a copy of the film and I was surprised. It didn’t seem particularly kind to Ronald Reagan, but painted him as a failed actor with a single obsession in his entire life: the destruction of the communist political system. Now, with echoes of Reagan resounding in Trump's tweets ("Let the arms race begin!"), I wonder if the film doesn't tell us what Bannon will be advising Trump to do.
The film used set-ups for shots that one will recognize from old film classics like Metropolis (dark, brooding, shots of creepy overlords), Citizen Kane (dark, brooding shots of politicians with creepy amounts of power), and a couple others, so it seemed like a weird montage by a newbie director who wanted to remind viewers of more important films than his own.
After watching the film, I then wondered about the book: was it as ambiguous about Reagan’s obsession as I felt the film was? Schweizer’s book reads like ad copy from the 1950s, not a book on political affairs published in 2002, and the book precisely illustrates my unease with supposed ‘histories:’
Reagan became enamored of Arthur Koestler’s disillusionment with communism in 1948, when he read Koestler’s book, Darkness at Noon and gradually conceived of
What I take away from this book and my haphazard attempts to fact-check is that it is detailed, fluently-written--even absorbing if one is interested in Reagan's intellectual prowess--narrowly-focused, one-sided, un-nuanced propaganda supporting Reagan’s monomaniacal zeal for democracy’s strength in light of the encroachment of communist ideas. Certainly watching the film of the book would take less time, and you would have to ask yourself at the end of it…what kind of men are these that praise Reagan’s strength in defying Russia before, and praise Trump’s cozying up to Russia now?
Is it the clarity of a single motivating idea, and appreciation of strongman attitudes and propaganda techniques that captures Schweizer's and Bannon’s imagination and support? Perhaps communism was the real bugbear, not Russia, and now that Putin is clearly a world-class oligarch in the tradition of democracies and colonial empires the world over, Putin is no longer the threat, but the partner.
There is no doubt that Reagan's arms race and inflexibility 'broke' the less-strong Russian economy. Perhaps Trump hopes to push Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea to the wall in the same way, through the threat of weaponry escalation. A bloodless kind of war, played economically. The deep cynicism needed for this tack misreads our opponents and reflects how the conservative viewpoint in America has developed under Republicans and the Koch brothers' influence.
I’d love to see the insights of others about the book or on Bannon’s film, In the Face of Evil. I hesitate to recommend either one, however, not finding the central ideas sufficiently complicated enough to explain or deliver justice in today’s complex environment. I learned to think differently, growing up, and to seek less autocratic solutions.
The film used set-ups for shots that one will recognize from old film classics like Metropolis (dark, brooding, shots of creepy overlords), Citizen Kane (dark, brooding shots of politicians with creepy amounts of power), and a couple others, so it seemed like a weird montage by a newbie director who wanted to remind viewers of more important films than his own.
After watching the film, I then wondered about the book: was it as ambiguous about Reagan’s obsession as I felt the film was? Schweizer’s book reads like ad copy from the 1950s, not a book on political affairs published in 2002, and the book precisely illustrates my unease with supposed ‘histories:’
"Along with their children Michael and Maureen, Ron and Jane [Wyman] lived in a beautiful home with a pool on Cordell Drive. He owned a splendid ranch near Riverside, and when he and Jane weren’t at the studio lot, they could be found playing golf at the prestigious Hillcrest Country Club with Jack Benny and George Burns. At night they often dined at the trendy Beverly Club."Reagan was an executive committee member of the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of Arts, Sciences, and Professions (HICCASP) which was accused in 1946 of being a communist front. Reagan instantly supported release of a statement denying support for communists which was opposed by the majority, leading to infighting and Reagan’s resignation. He was shortly elected to lead the Screen Actor’s Guild and became an FBI informant against his fellows in SAG. Wyman divorced him for “mental cruelty” when the two “engaged in continual arguments on his political views.”
Reagan became enamored of Arthur Koestler’s disillusionment with communism in 1948, when he read Koestler’s book, Darkness at Noon and gradually conceived of
”the opportunity to combine his love of movies with his newfound mission to undermine communism. Why not use Hollywood films to undermine the Soviets?”Ah, the wheels grind out opportunities. From 1959 through 1963 Reagan honed and developed his anti-communist message, and by the time he gave his “rendezvous with destiny” speech [also called “A Time for Choosing”] in front of a national audience in support of Barry Goldwater at the Cocoanut [sic] Grove, Los Angeles in 1964, he’d been delivering versions of the speech for two years already.
What I take away from this book and my haphazard attempts to fact-check is that it is detailed, fluently-written--even absorbing if one is interested in Reagan's intellectual prowess--narrowly-focused, one-sided, un-nuanced propaganda supporting Reagan’s monomaniacal zeal for democracy’s strength in light of the encroachment of communist ideas. Certainly watching the film of the book would take less time, and you would have to ask yourself at the end of it…what kind of men are these that praise Reagan’s strength in defying Russia before, and praise Trump’s cozying up to Russia now?
Is it the clarity of a single motivating idea, and appreciation of strongman attitudes and propaganda techniques that captures Schweizer's and Bannon’s imagination and support? Perhaps communism was the real bugbear, not Russia, and now that Putin is clearly a world-class oligarch in the tradition of democracies and colonial empires the world over, Putin is no longer the threat, but the partner.
There is no doubt that Reagan's arms race and inflexibility 'broke' the less-strong Russian economy. Perhaps Trump hopes to push Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea to the wall in the same way, through the threat of weaponry escalation. A bloodless kind of war, played economically. The deep cynicism needed for this tack misreads our opponents and reflects how the conservative viewpoint in America has developed under Republicans and the Koch brothers' influence.
I’d love to see the insights of others about the book or on Bannon’s film, In the Face of Evil. I hesitate to recommend either one, however, not finding the central ideas sufficiently complicated enough to explain or deliver justice in today’s complex environment. I learned to think differently, growing up, and to seek less autocratic solutions.
October 4, 2013
Reagan's War is an amazing book. I was ten years old when Reagan won the White House. Although I was a teenager during his presidency, I never knew very much about him until I read this book. Today conservatives value his wit, insight and courage more than I think we ever have. This biography contains plenty of stories exemplifying all three.
If you lean conservative and like Reagan but don't know a whole lot about him, this is the book for you. Schweizer's book chronicles the Gipper's life-long battle with Communism, first in the Screen Actors' Guild, later as governor of California and finally as president of the United States.
There are lots of great quotes and great insights into the man and his mission. What I really took away from this book was Reagan's absolute certainty that freedom was powerful, that Marxism is a lie and that the truth always prevails. I loved the slogan he used and his fellow conservatives used in Hollywood: "Fight the big lie with the big truth."
Reagan's War reminds us that the ideological battle between small government and socialism must be re-fought and re-won in every generation, but also that it is a battle worth fighting and one that is ours to win. The book is inspiring and thought-provoking, and it will stay with you for a long time after you have finished it.
If you lean conservative and like Reagan but don't know a whole lot about him, this is the book for you. Schweizer's book chronicles the Gipper's life-long battle with Communism, first in the Screen Actors' Guild, later as governor of California and finally as president of the United States.
There are lots of great quotes and great insights into the man and his mission. What I really took away from this book was Reagan's absolute certainty that freedom was powerful, that Marxism is a lie and that the truth always prevails. I loved the slogan he used and his fellow conservatives used in Hollywood: "Fight the big lie with the big truth."
Reagan's War reminds us that the ideological battle between small government and socialism must be re-fought and re-won in every generation, but also that it is a battle worth fighting and one that is ours to win. The book is inspiring and thought-provoking, and it will stay with you for a long time after you have finished it.
March 12, 2008
I am a big fan of Ronald Reagan, so I really liked this book. I can't guarantee that everyone will like it as much as I did, but I think that it could be an interesting read for anyone, regardless of whether they like him or not.
December 8, 2009
While working in Hollywood, Reagan experienced firsthand the deceptive and brutal tactics of communist activists who were trying to manipulate the film industry and take over the unions. During the Hollywood strike of 1946 organized by Herb Sorrell (a member of the Communist Party and secretly funded by the KGB), Reagan refused to sneak onto the film lots through a storm drain (as suggested by the studios), and instead boldly drove through the gauntlet by car. He was rewarded with death threats and spent several nights sitting up with a pistol in his lap to protect his family.
What could a mere "actor" know about domestic and foreign policy? Plenty! Long before Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", Reagan had keen insight into the strategies and tactics of the socialist agenda, such as "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have", "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself", and "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
He refused to be intimidated, he never compromised his message, and he never backed down. His clear strategies for undermining communism - "in a war of ideas, freedom always wins", "forcing them to try and keep up with us in an arms race will collapse their inferior economy", etc. - helped to bring down one of the most indimidating world powers of the 20th century: the Soviet Union. His enemies understood him, perhaps better, than many in our own country still do - and they were afraid.
History has a tendency to repeat itself. If you want to understand how the deceptive, manipulative tactics of socialist activists work, and how to defeat them, "Reagan's War" is an essential and encouraging read!
What could a mere "actor" know about domestic and foreign policy? Plenty! Long before Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", Reagan had keen insight into the strategies and tactics of the socialist agenda, such as "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have", "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself", and "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
He refused to be intimidated, he never compromised his message, and he never backed down. His clear strategies for undermining communism - "in a war of ideas, freedom always wins", "forcing them to try and keep up with us in an arms race will collapse their inferior economy", etc. - helped to bring down one of the most indimidating world powers of the 20th century: the Soviet Union. His enemies understood him, perhaps better, than many in our own country still do - and they were afraid.
History has a tendency to repeat itself. If you want to understand how the deceptive, manipulative tactics of socialist activists work, and how to defeat them, "Reagan's War" is an essential and encouraging read!
October 4, 2016
Reagan basically waged a one-man war against communism. After the attempt on his life, when his life was miraculously preserved, he felt very strongly that God had preserved his life for a reason, and that was to defeat the evil communist tyranny. Contrary to how leftist pundits spin it, it was Reagan's strategy--economic and defense superiority, along with his faith in God and courageous stand for moral absolutes in the conflict between good and evil, that defeated communism and brought down the Berlin Wall. This book should be read by all generations of Americans.
April 28, 2010
My review published in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002:
Reagan's War
The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
By Peter Schweizer
DOUBLEDAY; 339 Pages; $26
Hagiography often gets a bad name, but it can be refreshing. Even those of us who spent the Reagan years in the Bay Area, kvetching about the Great Communicator, can and should appreciate how fascinating a document Peter Schweizer has given us with this gush job posing as a book, "Reagan's War."
Think of it as a challenge: Are you so convinced you know everything about Reagan, and why he succeeded as a leader, that you can dismiss every shred of a sustained argument for his greatness?
Are you so well versed in the geopolitical subtleties of how the Soviet empire imploded that you can shrug off the claim of Reagan's fans that he was in many ways responsible?
The answers might surprise you. If nothing else, a deep gloom is likely to set in as Schweizer's breathless incantation of Reagan's rise to power starts triggering thoughts about just how much has changed in U.S. life in the 20 years that separate the trajectories of Reagan and the current occupant of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Schweizer forces us to focus on more than just the White House years, when age and perhaps illness put Reagan in a kind of fog where mental acuity was at best an occasional accident. As a younger man, Reagan actually cared about ideas. He actually sat down and mulled over what he thought about major issues of the day and clipped newspaper articles he could later use to back up a point.
That might not sound like much. But it contrasts utterly with what we know - - and feel we know -- about the intellectual training of our current chief executive. Put another way, Reagan was an intellectual giant compared with George W. Bush.
"Everything in life has a price and our biggest mistakes are when we don't really ask the price before we make our choice," Reagan wrote his son, Ron Jr.,
in 1971.
Back in 1964, Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign was in trouble, so Reagan was asked to give a nationally televised speech on his behalf. Schweizer tells us that Reagan drafted the speech himself, which is probably true because Reagan was pretty much operating on his own back then, during his days as host of "Death Valley Days."
The Reagan who spoke that night was a man who believed in ideas and wanted his listeners to believe along with him. "Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends?" he asked. He went on to talk about "socialized medicine" and the "evil" represented by the Soviet Union, but at least he was asking people to think. That's a long, long way from the current argument, which is basically: We're right because we're right.
The later parts of the book are less engaging. The story line of Reagan facing off against Gorbachev remains familiar, two decades later, and Schweizer's sis-boom-bah enthusing can grate on the nerves. But taken as a whole, the book reminds us that however much Reagan might have been lucky, his vision of challenging the Soviet Union with full-scale economic warfare did in fact play a major role in the Soviet collapse. Major military spending, Star Wars, war-by-proxy in the developing world -- all exacted a devastating toll on the weakened Soviet economy.
It will fall to other, more subtle minds to offer a reliable portrait of how Reagan's brinkmanship should be evaluated in a larger context, but one thing is clear: The man was consistent. As far back as 1971, when he read a book by "an old friend from Hollywood," Laurence Beilenson, called "Power Through Subversion," Reagan was thinking about stealing tactics from the Soviets and fighting proxy wars in developing countries. That notion later became known as the Reagan Doctrine.
Reagan was a leader, in short, in the sense that he staked out a position, often held to it and waited for others to come around to his way of thinking. That takes guts. It takes courage. And it's fair to salute Reagan for those qualities, even if in taking off the rose-colored glasses, we fail to stand with Schweizer in minimizing or ignoring so many flaws.
He does admit to a few. He acknowledges that the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran was a major failure, especially since Reagan had rejected the counsel of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others.
"For the war against communism, Reagan at several critical moments rejected the counsel of his advisers to carry out daring and ultimately successful courses of action," he writes. "It was a testament to Reagan's courage. But this time ignoring the advice of top aides would lead him to disaster."
Schweizer seems uninterested in raising the obvious questions about how this same stubborn insistence on doing it his own way could have led Reagan to disaster in other areas. He repeatedly skates past inconvenient facts. Describing the violence that occurred over what came to be known as People's Park in Berkeley when then-Gov. Reagan called in the National Guard, for example, he mentions that many officers were injured, but fails to cite the fact that James Rector of San Jose was shot and killed as he watched from a Telegraph Avenue rooftop. The omission is contemptible.
More fundamentally, Schweizer leans heavily on citations from Soviet-bloc intelligence services. This material is often interesting, but it would seem that someone who believes in the essential evil of the Soviet system would show some skepticism about the veracity of such materials. That goes, too, for the Politburo proclamations that they had achieved an actual advantage in nuclear weapons capability, as opposed to achieving parity.
But no one picks up a book like this for balance. No, the idea is to stop for a moment to blink and stare at a loving portrait of a man who had a major impact on his country and the world and did it with what has to be acknowledged as a certain panache. Schweizer quotes Gorbachev aide Sergei Tarasenko on the first meeting of the two leaders in Geneva, when Reagan stood there in a blue suit, ignoring the cold, and waited for Gorbachev.
"He projected an image of a young, dynamic leader," Tarasenko recalls. "And Gorbachev came out of this tank-like limo, in a standard Politburo hat, in a scarf, in an autumn overcoat, a heavy overcoat, looking like an old guy."
Steve Kettmann lives in Berlin and reviews for The Chronicle.
This article appeared on page RV - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
Reagan's War
The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
By Peter Schweizer
DOUBLEDAY; 339 Pages; $26
Hagiography often gets a bad name, but it can be refreshing. Even those of us who spent the Reagan years in the Bay Area, kvetching about the Great Communicator, can and should appreciate how fascinating a document Peter Schweizer has given us with this gush job posing as a book, "Reagan's War."
Think of it as a challenge: Are you so convinced you know everything about Reagan, and why he succeeded as a leader, that you can dismiss every shred of a sustained argument for his greatness?
Are you so well versed in the geopolitical subtleties of how the Soviet empire imploded that you can shrug off the claim of Reagan's fans that he was in many ways responsible?
The answers might surprise you. If nothing else, a deep gloom is likely to set in as Schweizer's breathless incantation of Reagan's rise to power starts triggering thoughts about just how much has changed in U.S. life in the 20 years that separate the trajectories of Reagan and the current occupant of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Schweizer forces us to focus on more than just the White House years, when age and perhaps illness put Reagan in a kind of fog where mental acuity was at best an occasional accident. As a younger man, Reagan actually cared about ideas. He actually sat down and mulled over what he thought about major issues of the day and clipped newspaper articles he could later use to back up a point.
That might not sound like much. But it contrasts utterly with what we know - - and feel we know -- about the intellectual training of our current chief executive. Put another way, Reagan was an intellectual giant compared with George W. Bush.
"Everything in life has a price and our biggest mistakes are when we don't really ask the price before we make our choice," Reagan wrote his son, Ron Jr.,
in 1971.
Back in 1964, Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign was in trouble, so Reagan was asked to give a nationally televised speech on his behalf. Schweizer tells us that Reagan drafted the speech himself, which is probably true because Reagan was pretty much operating on his own back then, during his days as host of "Death Valley Days."
The Reagan who spoke that night was a man who believed in ideas and wanted his listeners to believe along with him. "Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends?" he asked. He went on to talk about "socialized medicine" and the "evil" represented by the Soviet Union, but at least he was asking people to think. That's a long, long way from the current argument, which is basically: We're right because we're right.
The later parts of the book are less engaging. The story line of Reagan facing off against Gorbachev remains familiar, two decades later, and Schweizer's sis-boom-bah enthusing can grate on the nerves. But taken as a whole, the book reminds us that however much Reagan might have been lucky, his vision of challenging the Soviet Union with full-scale economic warfare did in fact play a major role in the Soviet collapse. Major military spending, Star Wars, war-by-proxy in the developing world -- all exacted a devastating toll on the weakened Soviet economy.
It will fall to other, more subtle minds to offer a reliable portrait of how Reagan's brinkmanship should be evaluated in a larger context, but one thing is clear: The man was consistent. As far back as 1971, when he read a book by "an old friend from Hollywood," Laurence Beilenson, called "Power Through Subversion," Reagan was thinking about stealing tactics from the Soviets and fighting proxy wars in developing countries. That notion later became known as the Reagan Doctrine.
Reagan was a leader, in short, in the sense that he staked out a position, often held to it and waited for others to come around to his way of thinking. That takes guts. It takes courage. And it's fair to salute Reagan for those qualities, even if in taking off the rose-colored glasses, we fail to stand with Schweizer in minimizing or ignoring so many flaws.
He does admit to a few. He acknowledges that the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran was a major failure, especially since Reagan had rejected the counsel of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others.
"For the war against communism, Reagan at several critical moments rejected the counsel of his advisers to carry out daring and ultimately successful courses of action," he writes. "It was a testament to Reagan's courage. But this time ignoring the advice of top aides would lead him to disaster."
Schweizer seems uninterested in raising the obvious questions about how this same stubborn insistence on doing it his own way could have led Reagan to disaster in other areas. He repeatedly skates past inconvenient facts. Describing the violence that occurred over what came to be known as People's Park in Berkeley when then-Gov. Reagan called in the National Guard, for example, he mentions that many officers were injured, but fails to cite the fact that James Rector of San Jose was shot and killed as he watched from a Telegraph Avenue rooftop. The omission is contemptible.
More fundamentally, Schweizer leans heavily on citations from Soviet-bloc intelligence services. This material is often interesting, but it would seem that someone who believes in the essential evil of the Soviet system would show some skepticism about the veracity of such materials. That goes, too, for the Politburo proclamations that they had achieved an actual advantage in nuclear weapons capability, as opposed to achieving parity.
But no one picks up a book like this for balance. No, the idea is to stop for a moment to blink and stare at a loving portrait of a man who had a major impact on his country and the world and did it with what has to be acknowledged as a certain panache. Schweizer quotes Gorbachev aide Sergei Tarasenko on the first meeting of the two leaders in Geneva, when Reagan stood there in a blue suit, ignoring the cold, and waited for Gorbachev.
"He projected an image of a young, dynamic leader," Tarasenko recalls. "And Gorbachev came out of this tank-like limo, in a standard Politburo hat, in a scarf, in an autumn overcoat, a heavy overcoat, looking like an old guy."
Steve Kettmann lives in Berlin and reviews for The Chronicle.
This article appeared on page RV - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
June 15, 2017
This book is riddled with errors and adds little to the academic historiography of the Cold War. From a personal political standpoint I was intrigued by the premise- I quite like president Reagan and wanted a better glimpse into his earlier years "fighting" communism. However, rather than focus on Reagan and his policies, this book seems more intent in paining the communists as story-book villains, devoting page after page to accounts of Soviet conspiracies and subterfuge.
Not only did this distract from information regarding Reagan's personal war, but it also was littered with errors. For example, the Soviets are portrayed as the prime instigators of the invasion of Angola, whereas in fact they were reluctant participants, dragged into the struggle by Castro's adventurism. Overall errors and the lack of an academic vision mean that I did not enjoy this book, although may still include it on my comps list.
Not only did this distract from information regarding Reagan's personal war, but it also was littered with errors. For example, the Soviets are portrayed as the prime instigators of the invasion of Angola, whereas in fact they were reluctant participants, dragged into the struggle by Castro's adventurism. Overall errors and the lack of an academic vision mean that I did not enjoy this book, although may still include it on my comps list.
March 24, 2015
Regan's War is an exciting account of President Regan's crusade against, and eventual victory over, communism.
March 5, 2011
Although intellectual liberals largely like to think that Reagan was stupid because he did not know policy details, I think he was intuitively smart and great communicator. Reading some of his speeches that he largely crafted on his own, no one can credibly say that Reagan was an idiot. Maybe he was not a genius but he certainly had an above average intelligence and was communicating virtuoso. I generally agree with his tendency to believe he had a divine purpose in his life as well as America having a divine purpose to spread liberal democracy to the world. After he was spared from death in an attempted assassination, Reagan's resolve in winning the war against communism turned to steal due to his mystical belief that his life was spared in order to win the cold war. Reagan was the rare democratic leader who has both the ability to stick to his principles and the political astuteness that allowed him to convince the public that he was right. He also combined the simple man's persona with Hollywood panache beautifully which made him a formidable leader. Not everyone can pull off what he did. For example, W tried to be like Reagan in his policies and his persona but W lacked the awesome communication skills that was Reagan'; so although W also stuck to his principles, the end result was a divided America.
I think the closest President to come into power that has both Reagan's principles and communicating skills is Barack Obama. Although he is left-of-center instead of right wing president, he definitely has Reagan's oratory gift and principles to pursue his policies. What remains to be seen is does he have the political deftness that seems to be Reagan's trade mark that combined laudable principles with political instincts to convince people to do things his way? For such a brilliant campaigner, Obama seemingly political deafness is astounding. For example, the Tea Party Republicans largely campaigned on repealing the health care reform but if Obama highlighted the fact that the health care law has a loop hole that if states had a better way of doing things then they could opt-out of the Obamacare. If he politically highlighted the fact that the states are in control of health care reform, then I doubt that the Tea Party would be as successful as they were in midterm elections. Obama also seems to be able to compromise the details of his policies for the larger picture goal in this way he might differ with Reagan. The great thing about Obama is he uses the Rights policy prescriptions to push the Lefts agenda. Although in his domestic policy, Reagan was also able to compromise the Social Security question with then-Speaker of the House democrat Tip O'neal.
What shocks and intrigues me about Reagan, is that he absolutely loved and relished foreign policy especially as it relates to American competitiveness towards other countries, more specifically the Soviets. I also like that he was open-minded enough to allow his children to have different view points from his own. I think this more than anything strengthens his claim that individual thoughts and ideas in a democratic society matter.
Although Schweizer tries to give all the credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, his book actually points to American policy from Truman to Reagan that eventually led to the Soviet demise. Schweizer tries to discredit Nixon's use of detente as capitulating to communism but I disagree. Nixon's economic detente gave the USSR the inflated self-confidence that they did not need to reform their economic system and government to compete with the US. Since the US was subsidizing USSR economy, then they had to think twice in attacking us with nuclear missiles despite their rhetoric; also, our subsidizing their economy led them to spend more and more of their money on defense in the false sense that they were winning their war against the US. In other words, Nixon's detente system made the Soviet have false sense of confidence in their system that made them overreach and try to defend an empire that they could not afford to defend and thus led to their fall when Reagan turned on the heat in terms of real arms race. Even though I think that pre-Reagan American foreign policies contributed to the decline of communism, I do think that his aggressive stance against the Soviets served as a the catalyst and "tipping point" that led to the fall of communism as the enemy of the West. Nixon's economic detente system also has led to increasing economic interdependence so that a war between nations is very remote (think China vs. US) possibility now a days without overt provocation.
The genius that was the Reagan Doctrine was not as so many detractors pointed out pointless wars and meddling in third world countries but by funding proxies against an over-expanded Soviet state that had an inherently weak economic system, it forced the Soviets to spend more and more resources toward its military in order to keep their empire that they got during the detente system. Since Reagan was right in thinking the Soviet economic system was inherently weak, then it follows that forcing them to spend more and more of their resources toward the military in order to counter the US would eventually cause their demise intrinsictly. So when Reagan finally came into power and increased military spending to "catch up" to the Soviets and I assume stopped Nixon's economic detente system with the Soviets, they could not keep up with us at that point. Thus, Gorbachev was forced to do glastnost and peristrokia in order to reform communism which attempt to force the Soviet last ditch effort to save their crumbling system. Incidentally, Reagan's economic warfare and military build up served as a catalyst for a reformer to take the reigns in the form of Gorbachev. In trying to save the Soviet system, Gorbachev was trying to make the Soviet's into an economically capitalist system a la China.
This book has given me a greater appreciation of the capitalist economy as the life blood not only for its citizens but also for its government. I think this underscores the importance of a healthy capitalist economic system with a robust middle class as national security priority. Because with a robust economy, we will have the flexibility to ramp up defense spending during a time for war. I reject the notion that America has to keep defense spending always high in order to have its security; because time and time again America has proven when our national security interests are truly in jeopardy, we can respond quickly because our flexible capitalist system allows us to respond quickly (ie: think WWI & WWII prior to those two wars, we really did not have a big standing army, yet within a year or two we were able to ramp up defense spending and production to win those two world wars). I now believe that America future as well as a strategic national defense really relies on a flexible robust capitalistic economy. Policy wise, I think this means stimulating the economy to grow, decreasing the deficit, and making sure we will always have the technological advancement by investing in eduction of its citizens as well as ensuring innovation by the private sector (government can help in this endeavor by funding basic science research that capitalistic companies do not have an interest in yet).
I also read somewhere that America economy will heavily rely on innovation and increase technological efficiencies for the future. I think this is the reason despite our drive to cut spending, I think Obama's central thrust of investment for the future is a must. Which in my view includes, continuous investments for R&D, education, and increase broad band penetration to all areas of the US, and perhaps rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure if absolutely needed. So if this is the case where can we see budget cuts that will decrease the deficit? I really believe this can be done via reforming the areas that are the real drag in government spending which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in a responsible way that is honoring those who are already retiring while increasing taxes when the economy has recovered.
As long as we have striking capacity against other nation states/countries and our R&D is strong, I think the main threat to our nation now is deficit spending and growing a robust innovative middle class that can fund future conflicts. This means, decreasing the bureaucracy and government in general via entitlement programs/military raising taxes when it is needed and placing government funds toward investment for the future (education, healthcare especially for children, and R&D). Although I initially thought that the "star wars" idea was a stupid idea, I now think otherwise. Even though technologically it was a failure and it was really just a pipe dream, it not only caused the Soviets to worry about it and thus caused them to ramp up their spending which further destabilized their political system but the research from star wars led to so many innovations that has allowed America to create technologies that has led to creation for more capital in the US.
The main threat to America's security comes through our economic predominance as well as diffuse subversive cells such as radical Islamic fundamentalist rather than nation states. The nation states that are danger to the anti-war peaceful cohesiveness of globalization are states that are not well integrated into the world economy that is the middle east and Africa. This means a shift in defense spending from large bulky troops toward special ops, intelligence gathering, R&D as well as using American corporations (Google and the topple of Mumbarack regime) and non-profits to try to integrate these areas of the world into the global economy while allowing them to keep their national uniqueness, thus decreasing the recruiting tool for destabilizing forces.
In terms of foreign policy, I agree with the Reagan Doctrine of trying to influence global outcome through overt trade agreements and targeted covert action especially against radical Islamic fundamentalist, or generally all cells that seek the destruction of the US democracy capitalist system. The reason I favor covert action in destroying Islamic fundamentalism is due to the unpopularity of US foreign policy in Islamic countries. In todays terms, I think it is in the US interest that Egypt develops into a friendly stable democracy in the middle east. Since Egypt gave intellectual birth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, if it can be turned into a stable democracy with moderate Islamic elements a la Turkey then it will take the steam out Al-Quaeda. I like covert action in funding friendly people who want a secular liberal democracy but also responsive to the Islamic culture over overt interference by the US because it will give the secularist legitimacy in their people's eyes.
I think Reagan strategic policy of changing the hearts and minds of the people in the communist countries was the right strategy because that is the only way one can achieve lasting change by fostering homegrown ideas that are aligned with American objectives. From all his plans to bring down communism, I most enthusiastically support his policy in Poland because it was a homegrown movement and thus marries American foreign policy interest with the countries innate interests. Now I understand why Reagan was so fond of John Paul II because they shared the same cause in trying to help the Polish Solidarity movement off the ground. Whereas Reagan was concerned with placing a big dent in the Soviet regime, John Paul was concerned with the forced atheism of the Soviet system so the church charities with US funds helped in subversive action toward the Soviet system.
In todays terms, I think turning Egypt into a liberal democracy with appropriate capitalism a la Turkey is the today's version of the Poland's solidarity movement that caused significant cracks in the Soviet system. I say this because Egypt is the intellectual heart of radical Islamic movement (Al-Quaeda's #2 is Egyptian and the intellectual fore runner of Osama Bin Laden). If somehow Egypt becomes a moderate capitalistic democracy while at the same time keeping its Islamic identity a la Turkey, then it will destroy the intellectual claim of Al-Quaeda that democracy/capitalism is somehow antithetical to Islam in Arab countries. This is the reason, I support operations that is similar to what Reagan did in Poland that ensures that Egypt, North Africa, and perhaps Arab countries in general become a thriving liberal democracy/capitalist with an Islamic Arab identity. I also agree with Reagan's strategy in funding non-profits that align with US strategic objectives. What gives this strategy a greater credibility is if the politicians and non-profits are homegrown.
Despite having Reagan as his hero, I think Bush's and the neo-cons mistake was to assume that the military action is all it takes to change the world into a democracy. Democracy inherently needs a socio-politic-economic change for it to occur and cannot simply be enforced by military force. It seems W. took Reagan's policy to the extreme in his sole reliance on the military to change regimes. American's can certainly easily change regimes but as we saw in Iraq just because we topple a dictator does not mean that liberal democracy will spring up over night. Unlike W, Reagan really used a comprehensive strategy to take on the Soviet empire and more than anything use the threat of American action effectively as well as funding homegrown movements that were align with the US. W and the advent of the neo-conservative movement which is an extreme outgrowth of Reagan's policy of a strong national defense thought that the military alone can foster democracy abroad which again as Iraq and Afghanistan has proven is a false assumption.
When the US wants to supplant an authoritarian government with a liberal democracy, nation building is a must!!! But as the Soviets painfully figured out, it is cheaper to fund insurgencies rather than governments. So, even though Bush wanted to be out of Iraq ASAP, he should have known in order for democracy to take route we needed nation-building but it would cost as money that he did not want to spend. Thus, if we really want to spread democracy throughout the world and since long-lasting stable democracy inherently needs indigenous population to believe in it, it is better to fund such groups in that country who believe in democracy rather than force democracy on them via military might; in the end, it is cheaper for the US and far more effective long term.
Reagan's policies did win the cold war and did allow the economies to thrive. But as with anything, policies in the past can have unintended consequences that can translate into problems for today. For example, by having the largest covert CIA funding of Afghanistan, we unwittingly provided the fertile grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and Al-Quaeda. Along with the creation of Al-Quaeda, dealing with the Saudi royal family in an effort to jump start our economy by lowering oil prices while at the same time denying the Soviet their main funding for their military build up, we created an image of America supporting repressive regimes in the middle east. At the same time, Saudi royal family continued to fund radical Islamic ideology in an effort to legitimize their hold on power. Furthermore, Regan's economic policy of cutting taxes and substantial increase in defense spending has led to today's deficit increase that the US government has to grapple with. Also, the demise of the geopolitical bipolar world has led to nationalistic ethnic tendencies and diffuseness of enemy into cells that are only united by a common ideology but not an organization or even an economy. This certainly presents challenges and opportunities. The challenge of fighting pure ideology without a body politic is that the striking ability of our enemies is unknown. The opportunity is that more and more the war of the future is really a psychological war of ideas and the hearts and minds of the people. The best way to prevent a chaotic terrorist attack is if these people will feel the first hand effects of is good about globalization, thus integrating their economies with ours. In the information age, America is the best country that will be able to withstand the change because its political and economic system is inherently flexible. The places where regimes will fall fast are regimes that are dictatorial because their rigidity is antithetical to the free flow of information which characterizes todays economy. So if these countries want to participate in the fruits of globalization in order to keep their citizens happy, then they have to participate in the information age which in the end spells the death of their dictatorial or limited-democracy.
Governmental policies, whether it comes from the right or the left have unintended consequences whatever you enact from Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Reagan's support of Afghan fighters and US support of dictatorial middle east powers for oil production that stimulated the US economy but later gave rise to jihadist like Al-Quaeda, to Reagan's tax cut in order to stimulate the economy but has been the driving ideology for the Republican party that contributes to the deficit of today, to Clinton/Graham initiative in deregulating the banking industry and Greenspan cutting interest rates that contributed to the sub-prime mess and the near collapse of capitalism. Having said all this, do I think government should stop doing policies because of a fear of unintended consequences? No! I think governments role is to respond to problems that arises in the here and now while being mindful of what exactly it is trying to achieve and at the same time looking to history as a guide to policies that worked in the past. Whenever policies that worked in the past stop working and creates problem, government must have the flexibility to respond. Thus despite Tea-Party Republicans concern the comprehensive health care bill, I totally support the bill because it addresses a need right now of fixing a broken system. Whatever unintended consequences that arises in the future, the government of the future should have the flexibility to change it at that time. But the fear of the unintended consequences of the future should never dictate policies for the present.
Even though this is not part of the book, I want to comment on Reaganomics and the current insistence of Republican tax policy. Reaganonmics deals with the idea that if one cuts taxes low enough America will forever be superior economically. Although this worked with Reagan especially since the top marginal tax rate was at the ridiculous 75%, thus spurring economic growth. Subsequent Republican presidencies most notably under W. has proved providing tax cuts indefinitely does not provide continuous financial growth (the great recession of 2008-11). I think that tax cuts are best when as a financial pick-me up during recessions but not when the economy is running at full speed. Basically, I am challenging the sacrosanct assumption that cutting taxes is always good for the economy. I think during times of prosperity tax rates should increase to allow government to refill its coffers especially in an era where paying off our debt becomes a priority but at the same time I do not think an increase in government coffers should result in a corresponding increase in government spending with the exception of investment for the future. Why can't the American government do what China does and sink government funds into stable investments for their future?
I think the closest President to come into power that has both Reagan's principles and communicating skills is Barack Obama. Although he is left-of-center instead of right wing president, he definitely has Reagan's oratory gift and principles to pursue his policies. What remains to be seen is does he have the political deftness that seems to be Reagan's trade mark that combined laudable principles with political instincts to convince people to do things his way? For such a brilliant campaigner, Obama seemingly political deafness is astounding. For example, the Tea Party Republicans largely campaigned on repealing the health care reform but if Obama highlighted the fact that the health care law has a loop hole that if states had a better way of doing things then they could opt-out of the Obamacare. If he politically highlighted the fact that the states are in control of health care reform, then I doubt that the Tea Party would be as successful as they were in midterm elections. Obama also seems to be able to compromise the details of his policies for the larger picture goal in this way he might differ with Reagan. The great thing about Obama is he uses the Rights policy prescriptions to push the Lefts agenda. Although in his domestic policy, Reagan was also able to compromise the Social Security question with then-Speaker of the House democrat Tip O'neal.
What shocks and intrigues me about Reagan, is that he absolutely loved and relished foreign policy especially as it relates to American competitiveness towards other countries, more specifically the Soviets. I also like that he was open-minded enough to allow his children to have different view points from his own. I think this more than anything strengthens his claim that individual thoughts and ideas in a democratic society matter.
Although Schweizer tries to give all the credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, his book actually points to American policy from Truman to Reagan that eventually led to the Soviet demise. Schweizer tries to discredit Nixon's use of detente as capitulating to communism but I disagree. Nixon's economic detente gave the USSR the inflated self-confidence that they did not need to reform their economic system and government to compete with the US. Since the US was subsidizing USSR economy, then they had to think twice in attacking us with nuclear missiles despite their rhetoric; also, our subsidizing their economy led them to spend more and more of their money on defense in the false sense that they were winning their war against the US. In other words, Nixon's detente system made the Soviet have false sense of confidence in their system that made them overreach and try to defend an empire that they could not afford to defend and thus led to their fall when Reagan turned on the heat in terms of real arms race. Even though I think that pre-Reagan American foreign policies contributed to the decline of communism, I do think that his aggressive stance against the Soviets served as a the catalyst and "tipping point" that led to the fall of communism as the enemy of the West. Nixon's economic detente system also has led to increasing economic interdependence so that a war between nations is very remote (think China vs. US) possibility now a days without overt provocation.
The genius that was the Reagan Doctrine was not as so many detractors pointed out pointless wars and meddling in third world countries but by funding proxies against an over-expanded Soviet state that had an inherently weak economic system, it forced the Soviets to spend more and more resources toward its military in order to keep their empire that they got during the detente system. Since Reagan was right in thinking the Soviet economic system was inherently weak, then it follows that forcing them to spend more and more of their resources toward the military in order to counter the US would eventually cause their demise intrinsictly. So when Reagan finally came into power and increased military spending to "catch up" to the Soviets and I assume stopped Nixon's economic detente system with the Soviets, they could not keep up with us at that point. Thus, Gorbachev was forced to do glastnost and peristrokia in order to reform communism which attempt to force the Soviet last ditch effort to save their crumbling system. Incidentally, Reagan's economic warfare and military build up served as a catalyst for a reformer to take the reigns in the form of Gorbachev. In trying to save the Soviet system, Gorbachev was trying to make the Soviet's into an economically capitalist system a la China.
This book has given me a greater appreciation of the capitalist economy as the life blood not only for its citizens but also for its government. I think this underscores the importance of a healthy capitalist economic system with a robust middle class as national security priority. Because with a robust economy, we will have the flexibility to ramp up defense spending during a time for war. I reject the notion that America has to keep defense spending always high in order to have its security; because time and time again America has proven when our national security interests are truly in jeopardy, we can respond quickly because our flexible capitalist system allows us to respond quickly (ie: think WWI & WWII prior to those two wars, we really did not have a big standing army, yet within a year or two we were able to ramp up defense spending and production to win those two world wars). I now believe that America future as well as a strategic national defense really relies on a flexible robust capitalistic economy. Policy wise, I think this means stimulating the economy to grow, decreasing the deficit, and making sure we will always have the technological advancement by investing in eduction of its citizens as well as ensuring innovation by the private sector (government can help in this endeavor by funding basic science research that capitalistic companies do not have an interest in yet).
I also read somewhere that America economy will heavily rely on innovation and increase technological efficiencies for the future. I think this is the reason despite our drive to cut spending, I think Obama's central thrust of investment for the future is a must. Which in my view includes, continuous investments for R&D, education, and increase broad band penetration to all areas of the US, and perhaps rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure if absolutely needed. So if this is the case where can we see budget cuts that will decrease the deficit? I really believe this can be done via reforming the areas that are the real drag in government spending which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in a responsible way that is honoring those who are already retiring while increasing taxes when the economy has recovered.
As long as we have striking capacity against other nation states/countries and our R&D is strong, I think the main threat to our nation now is deficit spending and growing a robust innovative middle class that can fund future conflicts. This means, decreasing the bureaucracy and government in general via entitlement programs/military raising taxes when it is needed and placing government funds toward investment for the future (education, healthcare especially for children, and R&D). Although I initially thought that the "star wars" idea was a stupid idea, I now think otherwise. Even though technologically it was a failure and it was really just a pipe dream, it not only caused the Soviets to worry about it and thus caused them to ramp up their spending which further destabilized their political system but the research from star wars led to so many innovations that has allowed America to create technologies that has led to creation for more capital in the US.
The main threat to America's security comes through our economic predominance as well as diffuse subversive cells such as radical Islamic fundamentalist rather than nation states. The nation states that are danger to the anti-war peaceful cohesiveness of globalization are states that are not well integrated into the world economy that is the middle east and Africa. This means a shift in defense spending from large bulky troops toward special ops, intelligence gathering, R&D as well as using American corporations (Google and the topple of Mumbarack regime) and non-profits to try to integrate these areas of the world into the global economy while allowing them to keep their national uniqueness, thus decreasing the recruiting tool for destabilizing forces.
In terms of foreign policy, I agree with the Reagan Doctrine of trying to influence global outcome through overt trade agreements and targeted covert action especially against radical Islamic fundamentalist, or generally all cells that seek the destruction of the US democracy capitalist system. The reason I favor covert action in destroying Islamic fundamentalism is due to the unpopularity of US foreign policy in Islamic countries. In todays terms, I think it is in the US interest that Egypt develops into a friendly stable democracy in the middle east. Since Egypt gave intellectual birth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, if it can be turned into a stable democracy with moderate Islamic elements a la Turkey then it will take the steam out Al-Quaeda. I like covert action in funding friendly people who want a secular liberal democracy but also responsive to the Islamic culture over overt interference by the US because it will give the secularist legitimacy in their people's eyes.
I think Reagan strategic policy of changing the hearts and minds of the people in the communist countries was the right strategy because that is the only way one can achieve lasting change by fostering homegrown ideas that are aligned with American objectives. From all his plans to bring down communism, I most enthusiastically support his policy in Poland because it was a homegrown movement and thus marries American foreign policy interest with the countries innate interests. Now I understand why Reagan was so fond of John Paul II because they shared the same cause in trying to help the Polish Solidarity movement off the ground. Whereas Reagan was concerned with placing a big dent in the Soviet regime, John Paul was concerned with the forced atheism of the Soviet system so the church charities with US funds helped in subversive action toward the Soviet system.
In todays terms, I think turning Egypt into a liberal democracy with appropriate capitalism a la Turkey is the today's version of the Poland's solidarity movement that caused significant cracks in the Soviet system. I say this because Egypt is the intellectual heart of radical Islamic movement (Al-Quaeda's #2 is Egyptian and the intellectual fore runner of Osama Bin Laden). If somehow Egypt becomes a moderate capitalistic democracy while at the same time keeping its Islamic identity a la Turkey, then it will destroy the intellectual claim of Al-Quaeda that democracy/capitalism is somehow antithetical to Islam in Arab countries. This is the reason, I support operations that is similar to what Reagan did in Poland that ensures that Egypt, North Africa, and perhaps Arab countries in general become a thriving liberal democracy/capitalist with an Islamic Arab identity. I also agree with Reagan's strategy in funding non-profits that align with US strategic objectives. What gives this strategy a greater credibility is if the politicians and non-profits are homegrown.
Despite having Reagan as his hero, I think Bush's and the neo-cons mistake was to assume that the military action is all it takes to change the world into a democracy. Democracy inherently needs a socio-politic-economic change for it to occur and cannot simply be enforced by military force. It seems W. took Reagan's policy to the extreme in his sole reliance on the military to change regimes. American's can certainly easily change regimes but as we saw in Iraq just because we topple a dictator does not mean that liberal democracy will spring up over night. Unlike W, Reagan really used a comprehensive strategy to take on the Soviet empire and more than anything use the threat of American action effectively as well as funding homegrown movements that were align with the US. W and the advent of the neo-conservative movement which is an extreme outgrowth of Reagan's policy of a strong national defense thought that the military alone can foster democracy abroad which again as Iraq and Afghanistan has proven is a false assumption.
When the US wants to supplant an authoritarian government with a liberal democracy, nation building is a must!!! But as the Soviets painfully figured out, it is cheaper to fund insurgencies rather than governments. So, even though Bush wanted to be out of Iraq ASAP, he should have known in order for democracy to take route we needed nation-building but it would cost as money that he did not want to spend. Thus, if we really want to spread democracy throughout the world and since long-lasting stable democracy inherently needs indigenous population to believe in it, it is better to fund such groups in that country who believe in democracy rather than force democracy on them via military might; in the end, it is cheaper for the US and far more effective long term.
Reagan's policies did win the cold war and did allow the economies to thrive. But as with anything, policies in the past can have unintended consequences that can translate into problems for today. For example, by having the largest covert CIA funding of Afghanistan, we unwittingly provided the fertile grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and Al-Quaeda. Along with the creation of Al-Quaeda, dealing with the Saudi royal family in an effort to jump start our economy by lowering oil prices while at the same time denying the Soviet their main funding for their military build up, we created an image of America supporting repressive regimes in the middle east. At the same time, Saudi royal family continued to fund radical Islamic ideology in an effort to legitimize their hold on power. Furthermore, Regan's economic policy of cutting taxes and substantial increase in defense spending has led to today's deficit increase that the US government has to grapple with. Also, the demise of the geopolitical bipolar world has led to nationalistic ethnic tendencies and diffuseness of enemy into cells that are only united by a common ideology but not an organization or even an economy. This certainly presents challenges and opportunities. The challenge of fighting pure ideology without a body politic is that the striking ability of our enemies is unknown. The opportunity is that more and more the war of the future is really a psychological war of ideas and the hearts and minds of the people. The best way to prevent a chaotic terrorist attack is if these people will feel the first hand effects of is good about globalization, thus integrating their economies with ours. In the information age, America is the best country that will be able to withstand the change because its political and economic system is inherently flexible. The places where regimes will fall fast are regimes that are dictatorial because their rigidity is antithetical to the free flow of information which characterizes todays economy. So if these countries want to participate in the fruits of globalization in order to keep their citizens happy, then they have to participate in the information age which in the end spells the death of their dictatorial or limited-democracy.
Governmental policies, whether it comes from the right or the left have unintended consequences whatever you enact from Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Reagan's support of Afghan fighters and US support of dictatorial middle east powers for oil production that stimulated the US economy but later gave rise to jihadist like Al-Quaeda, to Reagan's tax cut in order to stimulate the economy but has been the driving ideology for the Republican party that contributes to the deficit of today, to Clinton/Graham initiative in deregulating the banking industry and Greenspan cutting interest rates that contributed to the sub-prime mess and the near collapse of capitalism. Having said all this, do I think government should stop doing policies because of a fear of unintended consequences? No! I think governments role is to respond to problems that arises in the here and now while being mindful of what exactly it is trying to achieve and at the same time looking to history as a guide to policies that worked in the past. Whenever policies that worked in the past stop working and creates problem, government must have the flexibility to respond. Thus despite Tea-Party Republicans concern the comprehensive health care bill, I totally support the bill because it addresses a need right now of fixing a broken system. Whatever unintended consequences that arises in the future, the government of the future should have the flexibility to change it at that time. But the fear of the unintended consequences of the future should never dictate policies for the present.
Even though this is not part of the book, I want to comment on Reaganomics and the current insistence of Republican tax policy. Reaganonmics deals with the idea that if one cuts taxes low enough America will forever be superior economically. Although this worked with Reagan especially since the top marginal tax rate was at the ridiculous 75%, thus spurring economic growth. Subsequent Republican presidencies most notably under W. has proved providing tax cuts indefinitely does not provide continuous financial growth (the great recession of 2008-11). I think that tax cuts are best when as a financial pick-me up during recessions but not when the economy is running at full speed. Basically, I am challenging the sacrosanct assumption that cutting taxes is always good for the economy. I think during times of prosperity tax rates should increase to allow government to refill its coffers especially in an era where paying off our debt becomes a priority but at the same time I do not think an increase in government coffers should result in a corresponding increase in government spending with the exception of investment for the future. Why can't the American government do what China does and sink government funds into stable investments for their future?
February 8, 2016
Recounts the evolution of Reagan's fight against communism, from its beginnings in Hollywood to its ultimate triumph in Washington. As President, Reagan alone had the courage to stand up to the Russians, and his strategy was keen. When the collapse of the Soviet empire came in 1989, it was swift and complete. In the years since then, I think we've forgotten how ruthless the Soviets were to their own people and how dangerous they were to the rest of us, with their stated goal of world domination. Looking back, it's clear that Nixon/Kissinger's detente strategy was a mistake, as Brezhnev simply used it as an excuse to catch up to America in the arms race. And Carter's human rights'-based policy was a joke, as he was willing to enforce it only against our allies while ignoring the sins of our enemies. Thank God for Ronald Reagan!
October 18, 2019
4 1/2 stars. Much better than anticipated and shed good light on his earlier years, with which I was not truly understanding.
February 16, 2012
Great read putting into perspective the battles Reagan had to fight against the enemies of the Republic. Whether it was the Soviets or the extreme left in this country or treasonous politicians like Ted Kennedy working to undermine the President. He rose to the challenge and beat the extremists with a smile on his face. Boy could we use a Ronald Reagan now more than ever.
January 23, 2008
This book filled in so many of the details I never paid attention to when the events were actually happening (I was young and oblivious). It was so interesting, especially when you consider it was a non-fiction, political book which I would normally find less than fascinating.
October 9, 2014
Finally got to this book in my stack and found it to be absolutely excellent. It reflects a detailed research of Soviet and Soviet bloc archives as well as U.S. sources.
The final summary analysis chapter is worth the price of the book.
The final summary analysis chapter is worth the price of the book.
January 2, 2009
A great overview of Reagan's greatest achievement. Inspiring.
March 6, 2012
My review at Bookreporter.com - http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/r...
March 23, 2023
Initially excited to dive into a a fresh perspective on Reagan, the highly effective Storyteller in Chief. It turned out more of a shallow walk though many of the well-worn gripes of his opponents and critics, then and yet today. A portion of the single review on the book back cover by a university history chair sums it up well - "The enduring mystery of Ronald Reagan is how he got so far knowing as comparatively little as he did." It is precisely because Reagan was not a part of a so-called knowledge class of academic and other self-anointed intelligentsia experts, that he was able to marshal his extraordinary communication skills, keen strategic insights, common sense and bold actions into an extraordinary Cold War win for the United States and freedom lovers everywhere.
May 15, 2019
A gripping account of Reagan’s life long struggle against communism. It is not too heavy of a read which makes it a fun and light experience. The book does an excellent job making the case for why the Cold War would not have been won without the policies of Ronald Reagan. The book highlights failures in Nixon, Ford, and Carters administrations and contrasts them to that of Reagan’s. The authors premise is clear and concise, with lots of evidence and references to support his case.
May 5, 2022
Peter Schweitzer has written an homage to a celebrated warrior: Ronald Reagan, The 40th president of the United States of America.
After suffering the disintegration of American politics during the past years, reading about a president with dedication to the principles of the Constitution, liberty and freedom was a reassuring experience. Reliving the stories of Reagan's lifelong dedication to his ideals is a wonderful reminder of bygone days.
After suffering the disintegration of American politics during the past years, reading about a president with dedication to the principles of the Constitution, liberty and freedom was a reassuring experience. Reliving the stories of Reagan's lifelong dedication to his ideals is a wonderful reminder of bygone days.
April 17, 2021
This book should be required reading in high school history or political science. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of U.S. citizens today have only the most vague understanding of the Cold War era, and virtually no awareness of the minutiae involved. This book is so well researched, yet not bogged down with opinion or unrelated substance. Clear, concise, accurate. A joy to read.
March 30, 2022
Incredible history. That I lived through. It’s good to remember especially in today’s world how Reagan licked Double digit inflation and beat the Russians all in eight years. The book glasses over some of Reagan’s faults and errors. But he did do incredible work as president. And he was the best president I’ve experienced in my lifetime.
December 27, 2017
به نام او که ریگان را آفرید....
از اون کتابا که هر ملتی نخواند محکوم به فناست! والسلام
از اون کتابا که هر ملتی نخواند محکوم به فناست! والسلام
March 4, 2020
Very good
Read
January 26, 2016For anyone who now takes for granted the end of the Soviet Union... an invigorating tale of how Reagan's simple approach of dealing with Communism (sell 'freedom', have confidence that the US system will WIN - their economy would fail in any arm's race)... actually worked and delivered freedom to MILLIONS! We forget how much of a lone voice he was - the book contains now almost humorous remarks from Carter, Schlesinger, Dodd, and others from the left.
This is familiar stuff, but what was new here was that Reagan developed his approach in the early 60's and remained steadfast to it throughout. Also, I didn't really realize how Nixon and Kissinger were so damaging - their policies of detente were celebrated by the Kremlin as it played right into their hands: allowed Soviet superiority in military might to continue, selling them technology and cheap grain helped prop up their economy..... Reagan saw the better way.
BTW, the topic is illuminated with information from KGB/Stasi files - so you get to see their viewpoint on Reagan (often so much more accurate than the view from w/in the US).
This is familiar stuff, but what was new here was that Reagan developed his approach in the early 60's and remained steadfast to it throughout. Also, I didn't really realize how Nixon and Kissinger were so damaging - their policies of detente were celebrated by the Kremlin as it played right into their hands: allowed Soviet superiority in military might to continue, selling them technology and cheap grain helped prop up their economy..... Reagan saw the better way.
BTW, the topic is illuminated with information from KGB/Stasi files - so you get to see their viewpoint on Reagan (often so much more accurate than the view from w/in the US).
February 22, 2011
A great book! Peter Schweizer does a tremendous job of relating the true view of Reagan from the multiple American viewpoints and the Soviet viewpoint. It shows that there was continuity to Reagan epic struggle against the Soviets. This is a must read for anyone interested in the Cold War.
June 2, 2008
What a Prez. He's my dream...an actor and the president. And a stuanch fighter of the commies. He loved freedom and art. I'm obsessed.
September 10, 2011
Can't get enough of the "Great Communicator!"
August 31, 2014
An in depth look at Reagan’s opposition to communism. Other than the fact that the writer worships Reagan, it’s a good read.
July 25, 2017
I love Reagan. This book outlines how President Reagan combatted communism. Excellent read.
October 13, 2015
This was a great because I thought Ronald Reagan was such a good President. He did work very hard to end communism much to his credit.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews