A friend of mine argued that Bush's foreign policy actually consists of Reagan's ideas.   I, of course, emphatically agreed with her and pointed out that many folks consider Bush's first term to be "Reagan's 3rd".  (She was a little taken aback -- she intended the statement to be an insult about Bush's lack of originality / creativity and wanted me to respond accordingly)

At least when it came to foreign policy, Reagan's belief system was that strong military force + economic might + moral certainty all came together in the US and that we could pull the entire world in a new, better direction.  (Jill Nelson sees "force", "might" and "certainty" and automatically assumes a worse direction)

I look at this Bush quote from Andrew Sullivan and see Reagan written all over it:

...America has made and kept this kind of commitment before - in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

Reagan worked his magic on the Warsaw pact & Soviet Union and the rest is history.   I think Bush is very aware that he is proceeding down the same strategic road with the entire Middle East.

I believe, however, that Bush's task is saddled with an intrinsically longer time horizon.   We aren't going to wake up like we did in the 1991-1992 timeframe to find communism suddenly and dramatically crumbling one-by-one around us.   (we could be surprised -- no one expected the Warsaw pact to fall as suddenly as it did)

Part of this is because the Soviet Union was, in some important ways, FAR more brittle than the Middle East.  Economically, the average Soviet citizen did really aspire to the same freedoms, luxuries, etc. as the average Westerner.    Communism was merely their chosen path towards those goods and, as delusional as it may seem in hindsight, many folks honestly thought it would be the higher per-capita GNP path.   Consequently, as information started opening up, the premise that communism would provide greater material well being was pretty easy to test.

Militarily, the Warsaw Pact went toe-to-toe across all theaters with the West.   We were fighting a rich-man's war which would've been fine if they had better per-capita GNP but, we know how this turned out as well.

By contrast, much of the islamo-fundamentalism in Middle East isn't "brittle" so much as "backward".   The premise that the Path of the Mullah will lead to Salvation isn't as readily testable as communism was (Iran being the closest thing to the counter-proof-point).   The aspiration for freedom and material luxury isn't quite as universal as it was in the Eastern block with many opting for pursuit of Virtue instead.  I do believe that many / most desire this but that majority isn't as overwhelming as the Russians who wanted to drive functional automobiles.

The fight against communism may have been 45 yrs long but Reagan had the benefit of presiding over a pivotal 8 yrs within a 10yr window.   Bush is facing something in between the 2.

---

UPDATE: Innocents Abroad agrees.

---