gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.
It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.
I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.
In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.
I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.
