I found this to be an interesting read. Dr. Arquilla presents a complex and more subtle portrait of Reagan and his presidency than is presented in the popular media. He uses various academic models to provide a multi-dimensional portrait of Reagan and the most important model for Arquilla's thesis is presented on page 15. The model has four governmental ideals represented by Hamilton (Wealth), Jackson (Power), Jefferson Minimalism), and Wilson (Idealism).
He then plots all the presidents from Carter to Reagan at the beginning of their presidency and the end and then notes the way the president moved over his term(s) in office. It is how he plots Reagan on this model, more than any other model the author uses, that provides the framework for Arquilla's argument for Reagan's complexity and continuing legacy.
While I cannot recount every point the author makes, one of the central themes in his book is that the end of the Cold War, while an American Victory, is not the result of Reagan staring down the Soviet Union, but because of Reagan's willingness to talk with Gorbachev and to give the Soviet Leader the room he needed to make reforms. It is also important to note that the author never let's Reagan get beyond near great (pg 27), but does call Gorbachev great. This is a small, but telling point. Arquilla is trying to demonstrate that the old tension of whether it is "great men" or "historical forces" that lead to events is too limiting. It took these two men to seize the opportunities presented by historical forces to end the Cold War and, for Gorbachev to take the risks that led to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.
You can make of this what you will, but in my view of things, without Reagan standing strong - the first U. S. President in the Cold War to simply stand up to the U.S.S.R. without equivocation - there would have been no circumstance to create the opportunity for the Soviet Union to reconsider its global ambitions. And I do not believe that the U.S.S.R. could have simply gone on as it was without Gorbachev's courage. Certainly he deserves great credit, but things were going to change one way or the other because that country was falling apart regardless of what claims are made to the contrary. We can see from what has gone on there over the fifteen years that Russia has not flowered with principles of human rights and freedom. The U.S.S.R. went away because it had to. Gorbachev's contribution was to do it without war or bloodshed. It might have continued for a while longer, but it would have only made the collapse worse.
Arquilla then uses this model of Reagan to critique his successors and criticizes each of them for failing to learn certain lessons from the master. He also presents and interesting tour of the history of "military reform" and countering terrorism since Reagan.
While I certainly do not agree with everything Arquilla states in this book and I think that he is less good when he makes pronouncements of what a given leader SHOULD have done rather than limiting himself to clear analysis of what did happen, I do think this is an interesting book. And I certainly appreciate the more complex portrait he presents of Reagan rather than the cartoon still presented in the popular media.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
A more complex portrait of Reagan. It may not fully capture the real Reagan, but it is certainly better than the cartoon.
Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2006
