January 19, 2012
It seems every Republican running for office since Reagan has sidled up and put their arm around the Ronald Reagan cut-out, extolling themselves as Reagan Republicans; especially when discussing the subject of foreign policy and the military. Yet are any of this new batch of wannabes anything like Reagan at all… I mean really. Would Reagan be okay with all these preemptive offensive wars? Even Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama’s approach to foreign policy relies less on diplomacy and more on executive prerogative to push a “quick-on-the-trigger-war” — more resembling a Nazi blitzkrieg assault than an exercise in Reagan foreign policy.
As seen in the recent GOP Debates this neo-war-hawk attitude holds sway and is proudly paraded with inexperienced gusto and armchair vitriol by virtually all of the candidates but one, Ron Paul. The others tout this attitude as appropriate under the mantle of national security and “righteous” conservatism. Really…? I wonder how that would square with what Mr. conservative, Ronald Reagan would have to say.
Ron Paul, like Reagan, is a proponent of a Strong National Defense as the best insurance for a peaceful world. Reagan spent billions rebuilding our national defenses after the unilateral disarmament of the Carter administration, who favored dismantling our defenses at home while building up the UN military through NATO instead.
In his July 2010 article in The American Conservative titled, “Was Reagan the Ultimate Hawk?” Jack hunter compares the hawkish foreign policy of the last 4 presidents to the sensible and appropriate policies of Ronald Reagan, a legacy espoused by Ron Paul. Hunter states…
“…In December of last year,  a Public Policy Poll ranked Ronald Reagan as the most popular modern president and he certainly remains popular in the GOP, where everyone from John McCain to Sarah Palin claims to be a “Reagan Republican.” Considering this continuing popularity, it is well worth pointing out that Reagan as the “ultimate hawk” is largely a myth—at least compared to how most of the Republicans today who speak in his name view American foreign policy. Columnist George Will asks us to consider the American Conservative Union’s David Keene’s take on Reagan’s relatively tame foreign policy:
“He resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the  assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”
The answer? No. Neoconservatives will almost always commit troops anytime, anywhere and for any reason, whereas Reagan was hesitant most of the time, wary of where he might commit and liked having a good reason. If Reagan’s actual foreign policy record could become mainstream again, it would be a trend toward something far saner than what both parties subscribe to today. And if mainstream conservatives still suckered by the prevailing pro-war, any-war rhetoric on the Right are the least bit serious about honoring the memory of Ronald Reagan—they could start by no longer pretending that he was something he was not.”
This is not going to happen, primarily because Reagan was the most popular president since Kennedy. So maintaining the illusion that Reagan was a war-hawk plays well for the neo-war-hawk Republicans. In reality both sides of the aisle having interest in the so-called “Anglo-American Empire” will remain mum on this issue.
They won’t tell you that during the Lebanon occupation, by American, French, and Israeli troops between 1982-1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks, including the October 23rd 1983 truck bomb that blew up the barracks housing Marines and others, killing 241. Reagan’s first reaction was to escalate, but after further thought, he realized the best policy was to pull the troops out, which he did. Once removed and heading home, the suicide attacks literally stopped cold… and nobody was followed HOME by anyone.
But the neo-war-hawks don’t want you to know or remember this. They desire to campaign in the rhetoric of fear, unencumbered by the truth. “The terrorists are among us,” they say, as they propose bills like the NDAA, and SOPA to give themselves bi-partisan and absolute control OVER the Constitution and the INTERNET. All the while they appropriate and spend trillions to maintain the foreign occupations; to initiate new wars; and continue, as Ron Paul constantly reminds us, the senseless practice of funding the 900 bases in 130 countries which this government occupies.
Given the economic climate of late, this will require more Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, and MF-Global style ripoff/collapses in order to fund. We as Americans can expect drastic quality of life reductions as a result. Virtually, 3rd world status, poverty will be our future without hope of relief. Is all this sacrifice, of and by the American people really for security?
The facts show that all administrations since Reagan have driven a pugnacious foreign policy that Reagan would have railed against. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates and Barack Obama as well, demonstrate that they will continue the madness. This proves they are not taking their legislative or foreign policy directions from the Constitution or from Reagan foreign policy. No, they march along with G.H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and B.H. Obama, in lockstep to the play-book of the Third Reich.
The silver lining to this clouded presidential campaign is Ron Paul. It is refreshing to see his genuine respect for the Constitution, a strong National Defense, and a sensible foreign policy. As a result, more Americans are seeing through the corporate media’s “he can’t win” facade, to the globalist government’s subterfuge. So, Folks are joining in droves to support of Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign as it rolls on toward dare I say, more principled Reagan-ite leadership. Ronald Reagan would be proud.