And it just happened that, out of the blue, on his watch three crises just swept through. Why didn’t Nixon or Reagan have their near-war crises?
Kennedy gave us two Cubas, Berlin and Vietnam. Perhaps once could be understandable, but four times? Even if he, quite incredibly to me, had nothing to do with these instances (thus being certifiably the worst luck on earth), I still can’t see why would we call him a minarchist hero. Nixon was much, much better.
Don’t agree on Berlin and Vietnam. The partition of Berlin / Germany began in Postdam in 1945 and was an awful idea until German re-unification. The city was a source of conflict starting with Truman and ending only when the wall fell. And I don’t think Kennedy gave us Vietnam. He might have started sending “military advisors” there, but LBJ gets the lions share of the blame (and it also took Nixon a while to wrap things up, too).
As for why Nixon or Reagan didn’t have their own near-war crises - I can’t answer that definitively. I think the USSR was pretty much on the way out when Reagan was President. Perhaps Nixon was shrewd enough to know not to pick his fights with the Russians. This, of course, didn’t keep him out of trouble entirely.
The military advisors were initially sent by Truman, to help the French forces there. Apparently Kennedy wanted to pull them out of Vietnam, and planned to do so after the 1964 election (provided that he won it).
Nixon fought the Soviets by going to China.
By the time Reagan was elected, the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan and the US was bogged down in stagflation. Then Gorbachev came along.
I’d say that, knowing as we do the Misesian cycle of government intervention failures, sending advisors to Vietnam is what started the thing. I can almost sympathize with LBJ for being under heavy pressure ala “We are failing Vietnam!’, It was much easier for Kennedy to keep hands off than for Johnson to pull out.
Berlin was tough for everyone, not just for Kennedy. Still he is the only one to have made Berlin a near-war scenario. Reagan had much more cause to put pressure on the soviets on Berlin, yet he didn’t. I still can’t shake the impression that some military conspiracy had Kennedy killed to avoid a fifth, definitive, crisis. At least I would have, had I been in their position.
Nixon, on the other hand, has three distinct merits. First, pulling out of Vietnam. Being the first American president to acknowledge defeat, he showed some testicular fortitude there, say what you will about his presidency in general.
Second, he defused China. It is not inconceivable that, without the better relation with the US that Nixon had the courage to bring on, Deng could not have transformed China the way he did.
Third, the first SALT treaty.
As for Reagan, perhaps by than the USSR was indeed on its way out, but yet I believe he had many temptations and a lesser president would have jumped in to fill the void the USSR was leaving. But we’ll never know, of course.
I see your point - I’ll have to crack open some history books and read about the Nixon / Ford / Carter / Reagan era some more. This is an era of the Cold War in which I’m not terribly knowledgeable. Too bad contemporary politicians lack such fortitude. The only attribute many seem to reflect now is a massive case of stupid.
Second, he defused China. It is not inconceivable that, without the better relation with the US that Nixon had the courage to bring on, Deng could not have transformed China the way he did.
Ah ha! So it’s Nixon’s fault that China began modernizing and then proceeded to take all of our manufacturing jobs! If it wasn’t for him, we could be slamming some other developing nation for the outsourcing of these jobs.
Not before the worst casualties in the conflict occurred under his watch.
It seems that Nixon went to China in order to out-maneuver the Soviets. So it was pure Realpolitik.
MAD targets politicians too.
Wait, what?
The US did fill the void that the USSR was leaving.
What do you think George H. W. Bush’s “New World Order” speech was all about?
Not before the worst casualties in the conflict occurred under his watch.
Not his fault. Johnson left the hot potato in his hands. What he could do, that is give up, he did. God enough for me.
It seems that Nixon went to China in order to out-maneuver the Soviets. So it was pure Realpolitik.
Why didn’t Johnson find that in his interests? besides, does it matter why Nixon did it? It helped changing the lives of a billion and a half poolpe for the best. Thats all we should wish to know.
MAD targets politicians too.
Again, that applied well before Nixon. he was the only one to come to his senses.
Wait, what?
The US did fill the void that the USSR was leaving.
What do you think George H. W. Bush’s “New World Order” speech was all about?
Precisely. Bush did, Reagan declined the honor, although he had built much of his career on the macho, hard-line guy image, he tried not to interevene too much in that unstable world. Its easy to see how a less resolute man could have played with soviet Afghanistan much more (dangerously). Actually keeping in mind the degree of heat in the air at the time, Reagan and Gorby both deserve large credit for steering the world clear of war. A JFK style hot shot (cough cough McArthur cough) could have erred.