A brief political question. I'm just throwing it out there.

If:

1) Ronald Reagan was a great President because, in part, he caused the fall of Communism; and

2) If what he did to accomplish this consisted of, at its heart, not attacking, no matter the rhetoric; and

3) If failing to take military action to remove an oppressive dictator is a moral failing on America's part, as was argued in the build-up to Iraq, then:

4) Was Reagan's foreign policy a moral failing, even though it had a positive outcome?

It may very well be the case. But if it's not--if this conclusion makes you uncomfortable--then isn't it possible that there are instances where inaction is a more effective policy than action? Especially given imperfect knowledge? Just askin'.
posted by Mike B. at 3:12 PM 0 comments