- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
30 Years Ago: When Reagan Cut and Run
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:20 am
LINK
quote:
Thirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan made perhaps the most purposeful and consequential foreign-policy decision of his presidency. Though he never said so explicitly, he ended America's military commitment to a strategic mistake that was peripheral to America's interests. Three-and-a-half months after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel -- and after repeatedly pledging not to do so -- Reagan ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Lebanon. As Gen. Colin Powell later aptly summarized this military misadventure: "Beirut wasn't sensible and it never did serve a purpose. It was goofy from the beginning."
What was particularly remarkable about Reagan's bold decision was its rarity. Presidents often authorize using force or deploying troops to achieve some discrete set of political and military objectives. When they prove incapable of doing so with the initial resources and political support, the mission can be scaled back in its scope, enlarged to achieve additional missions, or, the atypical choice, terminated. The latter option requires having the ability to recognize failure, and political courage to end a U.S. military commitment. In large part, it is a combined lack of strategic awareness and political courage that explains many U.S. military disasters. . . . . .
Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to "redeploy" to their ships offshore -- which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine's mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan's tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America's further involvement in foreign-policy disaster -- saving money, lives, and time. Many pundits later claimed wrongly that Reagan was erroneous, because Osama bin Laden contended that the withdrawal was a sign of U.S. weakness; as if America's strategic choices should be held hostage to how terrorists choose to describe them.
U.S. officials and policymakers often share a long tradition of refusing to acknowledge strategic errors, or to place specific blame on individuals responsible for their authorization and execution. Rather, the causes of defeat are assigned to anonymous sources like "the bureaucracy," "lack of public will," or maybe "Congress." When serving or retired officials are asked whether a war or military intervention was a mistake, they often reply: "That's for historians to decide." Even then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this when asked if Iraq was "worth it" just before he retired: "[I]t really requires a historian's perspective in terms of what happens here in the long term."
But historians do not make future policy decisions; they study and assess previous ones. Sending Marines to Lebanon for such an imprecise and unachievable end-state was a tremendous mistake. Reagan's decision to tacitly admit that it was a U.S. foreign-policy failure, and to then undertake corrective actions, was an admirable trait rarely seen in poilcymakers or presidents.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:23 am to trackfan
you are actually complimenting Reagan? I don't believe it.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:26 am to trackfan
quote:
trackfan
this will not end well.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:28 am to trackfan
It really was the beginning of a new type of warfare.
What twisted me off was the denial of military decorations for those involved, the Reagan Admin was embarassed but it never was clear if it was the administration or the military. I know the people that were there or QRF got their decorations years later.
What twisted me off was the denial of military decorations for those involved, the Reagan Admin was embarassed but it never was clear if it was the administration or the military. I know the people that were there or QRF got their decorations years later.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:29 am to prplhze2000
quote:
you are actually complimenting Reagan? I don't believe it.
Why don't you? I've always been consistent and non-partisan when it comes to foreign policy, which is why I consider Bush 41 the best foreign policy President in my lifetime.
This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 10:52 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:33 am to trackfan
The original purpose was as peace keepers in the civil war there. So are we to believe that with all of your wisdom about the Middle East it was senseless to have sent troops into Lebanon?
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:35 am to trackfan
Clinton did it with Somalia and Republicans blasted him for it.
I think it was a good move, although it would have been better to have gone in one more time in force and wiped out the elements in Mogadishu causing the trouble in a show of force before we left.
I think it was a good move, although it would have been better to have gone in one more time in force and wiped out the elements in Mogadishu causing the trouble in a show of force before we left.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:42 am to trackfan
quote:
I've always been consistent and non-partisan when it comes to politics
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:43 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Clinton did it with Somalia and Republicans blasted him for it.
He should have been blasted. His cut and run from Somalia shocked the hell out of OBL who then became convinced that the US would not retaliate against terrorism. It caused 9-11 to happen.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:45 am to trackfan
quote:
I've always been consistent and non-partisan when it comes to politics
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:48 am to trackfan
He didn't "cut and run", he merely re-deployed.
In order to counter the images of coffins of US Marines killed in Beirut, Reagan needed images of Marines hitting the beaches:
Literally two days after the Beirut bombing Reagan had marines on the beach on Grenada. So quickly, in fact, it was a fait accompli by the time Reagan had informed his closest ally, Margaret Thatcher, who had at first advised against it - until she realized it had already happened.
In order to counter the images of coffins of US Marines killed in Beirut, Reagan needed images of Marines hitting the beaches:
Literally two days after the Beirut bombing Reagan had marines on the beach on Grenada. So quickly, in fact, it was a fait accompli by the time Reagan had informed his closest ally, Margaret Thatcher, who had at first advised against it - until she realized it had already happened.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:50 am to Zach
quote:
His cut and run from Somalia shocked the hell out of OBL who then became convinced that the US would not retaliate against terrorism. It caused 9-11 to happen.
I've wondered if Somalia was GHWB's farewell "frick you" to Clinton. Bush landed the Marines to support humanitarian aid to Somalia and left Billy Jeff/ Les Aspin to handle the fallout.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:52 am to son of arlo
Don't know but I remember being opposed to the humanitarian aid issued by Bush. Our military is not a pizza delivery service.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:52 am to Zach
quote:
Clinton did it with Somalia and Republicans blasted him for it.
He should have been blasted. His cut and run from Somalia shocked the hell out of OBL who then became convinced that the US would not retaliate against terrorism. It caused 9-11 to happen.
Come on, man. Don't believe OBL thought for one second that the US would not retaliate from a big, successful terrorist attack on US soil like they planned and executed. In fact, that's what they wanted to do. Start a "war" to escalate the us versus them (USA/Israel) fight.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:53 am to lsuroadie
quote:
I've always been consistent and non-partisan when it comes to politics
Oops. I meant foreign policy. Obviously I'm partisan in politics.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:57 am to Jwho77
quote:
Come on, man. Don't believe OBL thought for one second that the US would not retaliate from a big, successful terrorist attack on US soil like they planned and executed. In fact, that's what they wanted to do. Start a "war" to escalate the us versus them (USA/Israel) fight.
No, OBL had no idea of the degree of Bush's response since he had no idea that Bush was not Clinton. He expected the US to go isolationist. Expecting all out war between the US/Israel v. Arabs is a moronic view and OBL was not a moron. The Arab states are not united and even if they were they would lose all out war.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News