Would Ronald Reagan have started a war with Iraq? PLEASE READ FIRST

[bluestateguy]

Poll question: Would Ronald Reagan have started a war with Iraq? PLEASE READ FIRST

Now let me make a few points clear here.

Say Ronald Reagan was president in 2003 and of sound mind, the Cold War was over and the US's buddy-buddy relationship with Iraq from the 1980's has dissolved. Would Reagan have inititated war with Iraq?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Probably not

Ronnie was a saber-rattler. When it came down to it, he let the diplomats do the real work. Which may be why in retrospect he doesn't come off like the Nazi he looked like in the early 1980s.

Dubya is the opposite. He and his posse make the mistake of equating politically energizing feel-good statements with their intentions. They forget that puffery and theater are all well and good but don't get issues resolved.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm well aware of Reagan's many sins, and I've catalogued them all a dozen times. But he did know that it was easier to shoot his mouth off on Monday and become The Great Peacemaker on Friday, than to actually commit to combat (at least with countries that had arsenals that were too big to fit into a broomcloset, like Grenada's).

I'd say it's about 90:10 that Reagan would have huffed and puffed and NOT gone to war with Iraq.

--bkl

[Radical Activist]

2. Reagan would have used the CIA

or funded and armed a resistance group to take over Iraq. That is much easier than a full invasion and occupation.

[cornfedyank]

6. if ron had followed through in afghanistan we would not have this mess

if he had done a little nation building after the stingers beat the russians, OBL would never have gotten started. The region would have been greatful that we helped reestablish old trade routes. It would have been cheaper in the long run.

but ron wanted other things. He could not plan the peace either.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Good point. I agree completely

Reagan would have used much more subtle and crafty means, if this was what he wanted. Bush* has neither capability. The use of ground troops and the resulting huge U.S. casualty count will be his downfall.:shrug:

[PVnRT]

3. Much as I don't like Reagan

No, he wouldn't have invaded.

[happyslug]

4. Yes Reagan would have invaded but

like his disaster in Lebanon, once he realized he was over his head he would have the ability to admit a mistake and withdrawn. In my opinion Reagan would have gone in but by now he would have declared Victory and withdrawn leaving the Iraqis to pick up the pieces (which is what he did in Lebanon). This is true even if he had to leave the Oil behind, he would have accepted that lost over losing 1000 young men in a war that will only end with the withdraw of the US (Either before or after all the oil is gone).

[Voltaire99]

5. Depends on what his astrologist said.

Actually, as his use of the Contras and mujahedeen showed, Reagan preferred to pay proxies to destabilize foreign governments and terrorize their societies. True, he was not above blowing the shit out of thousands of innocent Panamanians. But in the post-Vietnam 1980s, the use of massive American force against midget resistance allowed the Empire to pick its enemies wisely while avoiding risking the backlash of a still war-weary public.

Freed from that constraint, a 21st century Reagan would have committed no end of atrocity.

Say Ronald Reagan was president in 2003 and of sound mind,

Say, rather, that the daft old fucker is burning in Hell right now.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. It was Nancy who consulted astrologists, LOL!

As I was reminded on FR. I still believe that Reagan, or anybody else, would have used more intelligent and subtle means, to get what he wanted, unlike the current cowboy-in-chief.:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Of course not

I cannot believe that anyone of sound mind, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, vegan or carnivore, would have had the lack of sense to invade Iraq. Reagan was neither stupid nor foolish, though he never got my vote. This is not a war that we can win, given the "insurgency," meaning that the Iraqi people hated us to begin with, and even more resent the U.S. invasion and occupation.

Besides, Reagan viewed Saddam as an ally in the Iran-Iraq war. I read what you said, but this relationship did exist, beginning with Reagan. Saddam would never have been able to hold his own against a stronger and more populous nation without the help of the U.S. Bush Sr. only invaded because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. did not get my vote, either, but he showed considerable more sense and restraint than his son.:shrug:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/whoops.html

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Dunno. George H.W. Bush and Oliver North could just as easily talked

him into it with the WMD argument w/o evidence of same. Remember RR was big on details.

[Mandate My Ass]

11. I doubt it

He was no friend to the common man and made outrageous statements about Russia being the evil empire, but I don't think he'd have ever used the military to score political points like the Bushes unless it was something without risk like Grenada. Besides we were using Iran to do the dirty work for us.

It raises an interesting question in my mind. What would have happened if he hadn't recovered from the assassination attempt in 1981 or had been unable to resume power and Poppy been handed the reins? I think then and only then would we have been in a war in Iraq during the 1980s.