Interesting Read on the ignored significance of 1989

[volinbham]

The Unknown War - Reason Magazine

musings?

[MG1968]

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

[Daddy Gee]

Originally Posted by MG1968

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

good point... which is why the next terrorist attack will be so vexing... I don't know that there will be a defined target that we can attack....

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by MG1968

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

I think actually the opposite. For those in the news media that were proponents for socialism or communism the huge Soviet empire was bad for them. They along with the US were the only superpowers. They were big bullies on the block.

When the Soviet Union failed proponents could point to smaller weaker nations like Cuba and say they were kept down by the US and had they been left to their own devices their socialistic experiment could prosper. The fall of the Soviet empire allowed them to redefine socialism to something more palatable.

[rjd970]

The failure of the Soviet Union created a vacuum for smaller states and asymmetric threats to fill. In many respects, the world was safer when two superpowers were slugging it out because it forced everybody else to pick a side and fall in line.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by rjd970

The failure of the Soviet Union created a vacuum for smaller states and asymmetric threats to fill. In many respects, the world was safer when two superpowers were slugging it out because it forced everybody else to pick a side and fall in line.

Safer for who? I bet the folks that wanted some semblance of freedom in the Eastern Bloc feel a lot safer today than they did when they were under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Safer for who? I bet the folks that wanted some semblance of freedom in the Eastern Bloc feel a lot safer today than they did when they were under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.

Safer for us, for starters. We don't have the comforting blanket of Mutually Assured Destruction anymore.

As a whole the world was much more predictable, which by extension, made it safer.

[Oldvol75]

Oh! If we could only play The Beatles,"Back in the USSR!!!

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Safer for us, for starters. We don't have the comforting blanket of Mutually Assured Destruction anymore.

As a whole the world was much more predictable, which by extension, made it safer.

Not buying it - a gross generalization to be sure. As the article points out, the number of people living in freedom has doubled. Not sure how that equates to a less safe world.

The Middle East was not being controlled by the presence of 2 super powers. If anything, the 2 superpowers were using the ME as their experimental playground and pseudo war. Countries around the world were being armed by 2 superpowers all through the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Cold War sowed the seeds of armed conflict throughout the world. The ending of it hasn't made that worse.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Not buying it - a gross generalization to be sure. As the article points out, the number of people living in freedom has doubled. Not sure how that equates to a less safe world.

The Middle East was not being controlled by the presence of 2 super powers. If anything, the 2 superpowers were using the ME as their experimental playground and pseudo war. Countries around the world were being armed by 2 superpowers all through the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Cold War sowed the seeds of armed conflict throughout the world. The ending of it hasn't made that worse.

First off, I don't consider people in countries like Turkey and Pakistan living in freedom, despite what token concessions they have made. The simple truth here is that although the people living in freedom may have doubled, it doesn't necessarily equate to people living with more liberties.

And I think your entire second paragraph proves my point, save the last sentence. At least with places like the ME the superpowers were using them as proxies, like you have suggested. You don't really think our support of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan or our tacit support of the Saddam Hussein regime against the Iranians didn't give us any control of these countries do you? Of course it did. Even Bin Laden, we knew what he was up to and we were able to support his jihad against the soviets. At least we had some measure of control over these rebel groups and dictatorships during the cold war...whereas now it is a free for all with these elements and they have become our biggest, and probably our most dangerous enemies. During the cold war, did we really sit up at night worrying about terrorist gaining a WMD from the Iraqi stockpiles and staging a suicide atomic attack on our soil?

There is a lot to be said for the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the cold war epitomized this. We live in a far more unstable world now than we did during the cold war. With two superpowers going head to head everybody is forced to take sides or get destroyed. With a single superpower we get multiple enemies, state and non-state alike, that have their own singular agendas and one big target to focus on. If anything, I would say our danger increased because by getting rid of one major threat, we produced multiple smaller ones with far more complex threat structures and geopolitical goals.

[Rasputin_Vol]

Originally Posted by KB5252

When the Soviet Union failed proponents could point to smaller weaker nations like Cuba and say they were kept down by the US and had they been left to their own devices their socialistic experiment could prosper. The fall of the Soviet empire allowed them to redefine socialism to something more palatable.

Interesting take.

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

Originally Posted by Daddy Gee

good point... which is why the next terrorist attack will be so vexing... I don't know that there will be a defined target that we can attack....

carpet bomb here

[IPorange]

You are proposing carpet-bombing Israel? That would certainly confuse everyone.

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

Originally Posted by IPorange

You are proposing carpet-bombing Israel? That would certainly confuse everyone.

correction, here, except isreal.

[lawgator1]

Two thoughts.

First, the editorial and this thread make a good point that there ought to be more recognition of the fall of the Soviet Union, the history of it, the effects of it, etc. I remember it when it happened and I think that in the 20 years since then a huge amount of what will ultimately be unknown resources that would have had to go to preparing for a war we all knew would be disastrous has been spent on other, better things.

Most of the piece focused on the susprising lack of notice of it, and that is a shame. At the same time, I resented the insinuation in the article that we should mark the anniversary by being wary of Obama or "liberals:"

At a time that fairly cries out for historical perspective about the follies of central planning, Americans are ignoring the fundamental conflict of the postwar world, and instead leapfrogging back to what Steve Forbes describes in this issue as the “Jurassic Park statism” of the 1930s (see “ ‘The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs,’ ” page 42).


Agree or disagree with that insinuation, it immediately distracts from the principle point of the editorial. It is unfortunate that the writer had to distract and detract from his otherwise valid point by taking a gratuitous swipe at "big government" along the way. Pretty thinly-veiled swipe, at that.