Ronald Reagan is by far the best, most reasonable president the U.S. has had during my lifetime. So it's worth taking a second look at his foreign policy. Wouldn't you agree?
Reagan sent troops into Lebanon. Then on October 23, 1983, a terrorist attack blew up the U.S. barracks, killing 220 Marines and 21 other troops. Immediately after it happened, Reagan vowed he wouldn't cave into the terrorists, but then he changed his mind and pulled the troops out.
Reagan explained it in his autobiography this way:
Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
Can you imagine the name-calling that would ensue from the pro-war right if Reagan were president, and called for a more "neutral position and neutrality" today? Gasp!
Reagan "hates America!" He's "aiding and abetting the terrorists!" And all sorts of other nonsense would be flung his way. It's nation-building (central planning of socialist governments at American taxpayer expense) or the highway!
What a shame ...
Because we need more sensibility like Reagan's concerning the war today.
