New at Reason

June 9, 2004

Michael Young considers what Reagan's debacle in Lebanon means for the war in Iraq.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← SCUM Buster | Main | Who Knew? →

See all 12 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.9.04 @ 4:37AM|#

Michael Young,

So history will repeat itself if the U.S. leaves Iraq (assuming that your history of Lebanon is remotely accurate)?

Warren|6.9.04 @ 4:40AM|#

Mr. Young is a fool, though he has a lot of company. Sooner or later, we will "cut and run" from Iraq. And when we do, it will erupt into civil war. Nothing in heaven or earth can change that. The question is how much blood and treasure do we spend until we accept the inevitable.

|6.9.04 @ 4:49AM|#

How can Michael Young so clearly recite the timeline of US policy lurching and staggering, then continue to seem to have faith it will lurch onto the right narrow path? He must have bet on that longshot winner of Belmont.

There is a better way. The better way calls for first getting governments totally out of the picture.

|6.9.04 @ 5:50AM|#

Michael Young:

Reagan was president of the U.S. His responsibility was to American citizens. He owed nothing to Lebanon, except not to intervene in the first place.

|6.9.04 @ 6:59AM|#

Warren > "Sooner or later, we will "cut and run" from Iraq. "

The only way we're going to bail on the Iraqis is if enough pessimists like you vote to do so.

I don't know why you would make such a choice, but fortunately you get only one vote.

|6.9.04 @ 7:04AM|#

Warren, by backing out of Lebanon in response to the bombing deaths of our soldiers, Reagan sent a message to the world that we would back down from a fight.

Of course, Jimmy Carter sent the same message in 1979.

Both messages affected the safety of all of us, and both those presidents did us wrong in those cases.

|6.9.04 @ 7:07AM|#

So Bostonian, should we 'tough it out' like we did Vietnam?

And what exactly was the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place?

Justin Raimondo|6.9.04 @ 11:16AM|#

If Michael Young really means to blame the Syrians (of all people!) for Iran-Contra, then he's been smoking too much of that fine Lebanese hash.

|6.10.04 @ 3:24AM|#

Michael Young:

(For our government to depart Iraq) would be downright immoral. An Iraqi civil war could indeed break out (whereas today one seems unlikely)

What? So it's better to have US troops be the target of the anger? Also, if that reason was really morally binding, then the government would be obligated to place troops in lots of places where civil war might break out because of situations that are due to, or aggravated by US government intervention.

But, of course they shouldn't if these situations don't threaten US security. Neither does Iraq's. It never did.

It's unfair to the American people to force them to support the occupation when it is not necessary for their security, and might even be putting it at increased risk: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=28&u=/latimests/20040609/ts_latimes/uswillrevisedataonterror

Westerners would be vulnerable to kidnapping

And they aren't now?? Also, this does tend to happen to folks who are associated with an unwelcome occupying army.

militant anti-American groups could thrive in the vacuum

What?? The occupation, with its grim realities:
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
is in fact a high powered recruiting campaign for militant anti-American groups.

in the absence of hegemony by one state, Iraq would be buffeted by the contending whims of several of its neighbors, which could provoke regional crises.

Says Carnac. This assumes you have an insight into the minds of the leaders of places such as Syria, Israel and Iran that you don't have. And, even if you did, and you found the worst case, it assumes that these "whims" would be put into action successfully.

Even if your nightmare came fully to fruition, it does not justify forcing the American people to support the occupation.

How many more American lives would it be worth to have an Iraqi government on par with say, the brutal Egyptian Regime?-- to which our government commits three or four billion dollars every year.

Is it realistic to expect that our government can really "make" the Iraqis any more free than the Egyptians even if it really wanted to? Again, how many lives and American lives would it be worth?

Or, could the government make Iraq as "free" as Jordan, that receives US tax support, or as "free" as the Palestinian's, whose brutal occupation by the Sharon regime is the US government's most expensive foreign aid commitment by far.

he(Reagan)was a dope

"There you go again" ;)

Of course, you never had to face him in an election or over a negotiating table.

|6.10.04 @ 7:39AM|#

dhex,

Yeah, the disease was taking its toll. However many innocent stem cells have to be sacrificed, the sooner a cure is found, the better.

|6.10.04 @ 9:17AM|#

yeah, but rick, surely you agree homeboy was senile from 85 on.

|6.11.04 @ 2:06AM|#

I would have let Raimondo's criticism slide, particulary as he made the rather outrageous claim that I would waste good Lebanese hash on a reflection on Syria. However, I saw this entry on antiwar.com, repeating what he wrote here.

"'One thing Bush must not do in Iraq is imitate what Reagan did in Lebanon, because there the Gipper left behind one perilous wasteland.

'� By failing to stick it out in Iraq, the U.S. could well make the same mistakes there that it did in Lebanon. True, Lebanon had no strategic significance for the Reagan administration, but when the U.S. simply cut and run, this did far more damage to its interests than many care to remember. The Syrian-managed chaos that the Reagan administration left behind allowed for the blossoming of militant Muslim groups that kidnapped dozens of foreigners during the mid-1980s, leading to the fiasco of Iran-Contra. Many of these groups would eventually coalesce into Hezbollah, which the Bush administration today considers a major terrorist threat. The U.S. also took the 1983 suicide attacks against its embassy and soldiers lying down, effectively ceding Lebanon to a Syrian regime that had more than its share of responsibility for the ensuing deaths.'

Damascus is the root of all the evil in Young's world, sitting as he is in Beirut, but surely he takes his Syria-phobia a bit too far: is he really saying the Syrians were to blame for Iran-Contra?"

Actually, Justin I'm not, nor does the passage say that. Reread it and you'll see that the kidnapping of Westerners led to Iran-Contra. Were the Syrians partly responsible? Given that they controlled the Bekaa Valley where many of the captives were taken, yes to an extent. Did they cause Iran-Contra? No.

Just a clarification.