President Obama has come under criticism from a number of his political opponents for failing to act quickly on a strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Recently former Vice-President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration deliberation as “dithering” on deploying more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Cheney urged President Obama to “do what it takes to win.” While accepting an award from a conservative national security group, the Center for Security Policy Cheney noted, "Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."
While it is easy to criticize that Cheney’s desire is for the President to finish one of two wars he and former President Bush started and were unable to end on their watch, the fact that he felt embolden to give these remarks before an audience at the Center for Security Policy indicates Cheney felt he was speaking to like-minded brethren; his militaristic, bellicose stance being indicative of the standard “party line”—peace through strength—that would be favorably received as he preached to the conservative “choir.”
This more militaristic response by conservative has become a staple of Republican foreign policy since the Reagan administration. It seems that every four years Republican presidential hopefuls engage in playing the old TV game show To Tell the Truth where each candidate tries to convince voters that they best embody the spirit of Ronald Reagan. During a FOX News presidential debate in November 2007 Rudy Guiliani noted that “Ronald Reagan won the Cold war without firing a shot, but it was because he pointed a thousand missiles at Soviet cities.”
The problem for conservative like Cheney is that if Reagan were President they might have to urge him to not dither on Afghanistan.
The problem for conservative like Cheney is that if Reagan were President they might have to urge him to not dither on Afghanistan.
The Reagan “myth” of a gunslinger staring down his enemies until they blinked, so forcefully proclaimed by many right-wing pundits, does not match the Reagan whose actions rarely corresponded to the proclivities claimed by his admirers. In fact, in his day, Reagan was often criticized by hawkish conservatives for not acting more forcefully. Near the end of his tenure in office, and during heightened tension in Latin American, Reagan refused to send US troops to Nicaragua and constantly battled with military and congressional hawks over this issue noting, ”Those sonuvbitches won’t be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua , and I am not going to do that.”
In June of 1985 TWA Flight 847 was hijacked by Hezbollah terrorists, an act that also lead to the death of an American serviceman onboard the flight. Urged by many of his aides, most notably the hawkish Pat Buchanan, Reagan refused to use force to respond to terrorism. Reagan told biographer Lou Cannon that “killing civilians in a strike against terrorist would be an act of terrorism itself.” Two days after the hijacking Reagan had to overrule a military response to an attack on Marines in El Salvador. Cannon notes that “Reagan asked [National Security Advisor Robert] McFarlane whether an attack could be carried out without killing civilians.” Avoiding “collateral damage” (a term coined during the first Gulf War and first Bush administration for civilian deaths) was a major part of the Reagan decision process and a far car from the “shock and awe” tactics of G.W. Bush, Cheney and other conservatives who claim the Reagan legacy.
On October 23, 1983 229 servicemen, including 220 Marines, were killed by a suicide bomber in Beirut. While the official U.S. response was that the U.S. would not be “cowed by terrorists,” in February of 2004 U.S. service personnel in Lebanon were “redeployed” to ships offshore. Such a response by the President today would most certainly be labeled as an example of “cutting and running” by conservative critics.
