Republican Party

Conservatives Should Resurrect Reagan's Foreign Policy

Rick Perry likes to speculate what the Gipper would do, but he should look at what he DID do.


"What would Ronald Reagan do?"

That's become the go-to inquiry for conservatives on nearly every public policy question, from the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to corporate welfare in the Sooner State (visit the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs' "Virtual Reagan Wall," where you can "share your message about what Reagan would do to improve Oklahoma today"!).

When likely 2016 contenders Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Texas Gov. Rick Perry squared off for an op-ed duel on the Iraq crisis recently, it quickly degenerated into a rapid-fire "Reagan-off," with Perry unleashing a hellstorm of Gipper references, roughly one per 100 words.

It's not obvious that channelling a president who left office more than a quarter century ago is the best way for Republicans to craft sound policy for the 21st century Middle East. But if you think the Reagan legacy holds lessons for today, why not start with a question we can actually answer, like: "WDRD?" — that is, "what did Reagan do" in the region?

The man had a record, after all — and when you look at that record, it's obvious that most of today's conservatives, Perry included, would hate Reagan's Middle East policies.

Perry imagines a reincarnated Reagan who'd bring "moral and strategic clarity" to our Iraq policy. "Strategic clarity," perhaps; "moral," not so much.

Reagan's approach to Iraq was ruthless realpolitik: his administration viewed Saddam Hussein as an essential counterweight to Iranian power and backed the dictator in his bloody eight-year war with Iran. Reagan officials took Iraq off the State Department's list of terror-supporting states, reestablished diplomatic relations and shared intelligence that "proved vital to Iraq's conduct of the war."

In the broader Middle East, Reagan fought a naval quasi-war to keep Gulf shipping open and, in 1986, launched airstrikes on Libya designed to punish without inducing regime change. But after cutting and running from the disastrous peacekeeping deployment in Lebanon in 1984, Reagan decided the wiser policy was to keep U.S. forces over the horizon and our boots off the ground.

Nor did Reagan think uncritical support for Israel served U.S. interests. He pushed for weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite Israel's vehement opposition, insisting "it is not the business of other nations to make United States foreign policy," and he backed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. As Haaretz's Chemi Shalev has put it, "if Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, he'd be impeached."

Indeed, at the time, many on the Right, neoconservatives in particular, did hate Reagan's policies in the Middle East. In 1982, Norman Podhoretz decried "the continuing tilt in American policy toward the enemies of Israel." Podhoretz also worried that the Reagan team was too timid about stationing troops in the Arab world, having backed away from their earlier assessment that "it would be necessary to station American ground forces somewhere in the region" to act "simultaneously as a deterrent and a ?tripwire' " against the Soviets.

Some of Reagan's policies in the Gulf — like his administration's complicity in Iraqi war crimes — are hard to defend. But his reluctance to put American soldiers in the crossfire isn't one of them.

Reagan later called the deployment of the Marines to Beirut — where 241 died in a terrorist truck-bombing — his "greatest regret" as president. As he put it in his 1990 autobiography: "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of hatred and complexity of problems that make the Middle East such a jungle." But Reagan learned something from that mistake, returning to a policy of "offshore balancing," unburdened by dreams of a miraculous regional transformation.

Conservatives could stand to learn that lesson as well.

This column originally appeared in The Washington Examiner. 

NEXT: Mulling It Over: Obama Considering Unilateral Action on Immigration

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shell the Shuf Mountains with the USS Iowa?

  2. Why not Jefferson’s foreign policy? Terrorist/pirate attacks get you a nice dose of pissed-off Marines, who blow up your shit and go home.

    1. (Obligatory)


  3. Deploy a missile defense system?

  4. make jokes about communist Russia?

    1. Reagan’s jokes about Soviet Russia will soon be applicable to the USA.

  5. Make speeches in front of walls?

    1. Quadruple the size and budget of the State Dept.?

  6. Sell weapons to terrorists in Iran and give the money and other support to terrorists in Nicaragua?

  7. What would Harry Browne have done?

    “The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop the Communist dominos from falling, and the entire region fell to the communists. The U.S. invaded Panama, supposedly to end drug-dealing there, and today Panama is more overrun with the drug trade than ever. After years of arming Saddam Hussein, the U.S. invaded Iraq to get rid of him, but he is still held up as a terrible threat to the world. The U.S. bombed Libya to teach terrorists a lesson; so the terrorists hijacked the Pan American plane over Scotland.”

    “Perhaps you could give me an example of where U.S. military response in the past several decades has achieved any purpose.”

    1. Grenada?

  8. Say what you want about the Reagan years, things are far worse now in just about any area you can name. This despite what millennials were told in school or by Jon Stewart.

    1. You don’t destroy a country in a year or two. Old Ronnie was the guy to start the downhill ball rolling. His administration started all the policies designed to destroy the middle class such as looking the other way while illegals were used to break unions and then amnestying them, “guest” workers, and free trade.

      He did nothing to stop the march of affirmative action into “diversity” and was no friend of the constitution as he expanded the war on drugs. He did nothing to stop the march of political correctness. In short he was no real conservative.

      He also started our boom-bust bubble economy by deregulating the thrifts and looking the other way while white collar criminals looted them.

      So yeah we are worse off thanks to the long march started under him.

  9. “it would be necessary to station American ground forces somewhere in the region” to act “simultaneously as a deterrent and a ?tripwire’ ” against the Soviets.

    Those who think the “tripwire” strategy has any merit should volunteer to take up a rifle and serve as the tripwire. When neoconservatives call for “troops as deterrents”, what they mean is, “we want a war, but we need a little fresh American blood in which to dip our shirts.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.