Look how Adelman compares the Russia
of today with the Soviet Union of those years:
“Reagan was facing a far stronger adversary than President
Obama faces now with Mr. Putin. Russia 's
army today is one-fourth the size of the Soviet army of the 1980s, and its
nuclear arsenal about one-fifth as big. Russia 's
economy today is about the size of Italy 's, and the Putin regime,
while stoking nationalism at home, lacks an ideology like Marxism that might appeal to
intellectuals and tyrants abroad. President Putin is working without a net.”
If this is the case, it means that America won and Russia
lost which, in fact, is how Adelman ends his article: “With the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War: We won, they lost.” So the question
to ask is this: What does Ken Adelman seek to achieve when he laments that the
Obama administration “seems content to settle for a tie.” To someone sane, it
means that Obama wants to maintain the gains that Reagan won and will not
gamble them to continue playing a game that makes no sense anymore.
On the other hand, to someone that needs to explain himself
more fully, the situation is this: “the current American agenda is not as
ambitious as ending the Cold War … over such flash points as Ukraine and Syria .” Of course, the agenda is
not as ambitious. It is not because a flash point is not as big a deal as the
Cold War, and does not necessitate the taking of the same risks. This is
especially true given that the adversary is, by Adelman's own account, no
longer the threat that it used to be.
What seems to lift the nostalgic spirit of our author is
this: “Mikhail Gorbachev groused to Reagan – more than 10 times, in fact – that
the Russians were making all the concessions while Reagan was making none …
[Reagan's] 'peace through strength' doctrine and buildup of U.S. military
power – including the Strategic Defense Initiative – infuriated his Russian
counterpart.” Is this how Adelman measures success? He wants to see and hear
Putin grouse about something? And what would that be? Another buildup of
American military power at a time when Russia has been reduced to a fifth
of what it was ... by Adelman's own account?
And what a waste Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative has
been. It never worked; not even in the lab. Its offshoot, the Patriot missile
program turned out to be a dud of the same kind. And no one knows this more
than the Kuwaitis, the Saudis and the Israelis who had first experience with it
during the first Gulf War. In Kuwait ,
the only thing that the missile brought down was a British plane that was
coming to land after a bombing run in Iraq . In Saudi Arabia , the only place where
American casualties occurred, an Iraqi Scud hit a base that was supposed to be
protected by the Patriot, killing scores of Americans. As to Israel , they
received several dozen Scud hits, none of which was intercepted by the Patriot.
Do Adelman and those of his ilk wish to repeat this performance?
Perhaps the author of the article did not mean to say all
that – perhaps. But look what else he says: “At the same time, Reagan launched
a 'war of ideas' that aimed to delegitimize the Soviet system.” But the fact is
that the Soviet system collapsed not because of Reagan's war of ideas but
because of bad economic planning. And Adelman seems to sense he is on the wrong
track here. Look at this: “Maybe I'm missing something, but such initiatives
are now absent. Instead of bold actions, there are muddled reactions.” Does he
mean to say that barking insults at a foe can be classified as bold action?
To explain himself, he says something in passing about Russia 's energy
vulnerability then resumes the discussion regarding the war of ideas:
“Reagan showed true grit. He opened the superpower discussion by saying that
while 'each side has mistrusted the other,' America was firmly in the right …
SDI is the greatest opportunity for peace in the 20th century.” How wrong he
turned out to be.