Transcripts For CSPAN2 William 20240705

Part of a better america. A year and a half into this presidency, president reagan stood in westminster palace and declared before British Parliament and the world that freedom and democracy will leave marxism and leninism. The ash heap of history. In that speech, president reagan didnt just lay out his Foreign Policy. He called for america to support, a Global Campaign for democracy. It was a turning point in the cold war. It was turning point in history. It is so significant and central to the reagan presidency that we celebrated its 40th anniversary here at the reagan an Institute Just this year. That speech also provides the opening scene for new book the peacemaker. Ronald the cold war and the world on the brink. Its the book written our guest tonight. Hes the executive director of the Clement Center for national at the university of texas austin here at the reagan library. We are so grateful for dr. Evidence, incredibly thoughtful scholarship, a book like this is no easy task. It was almost a ten year process. You practically took up residence here at the reagan library. We learned for almost a half a year all combined as he carefully combed the archives to get every detail just perhaps thats why this book is quickly becoming regarded. The authoritative, comprehensive history of the reagan administrations Foreign Policy and id like to emphasize the word comprehensive, because have you seen the size of this book . But dont be intimidated. It is extraordinarily accessible which in my view makes it even more for decades, dr. Inboden has worked at the crossroads of government and academia. He served on the National Security council on the state departments policy planning staff and as a Congressional Staff member hes been widely he teaches some of the most popular classes at uts lbj school and he serves on the cias historical advocate Advisory Panel and state departments historical advisory. Now, we dont time to talk about all of his accomplishments because we want to talk with him about the peacemaker. What did he uncover while working on the book, what lessons does it have for us today and how did a sunny optimism ensure that soviet communism would indeed end up on the ash heap of history so, ladies and gentlemen, here to bring us the answers please welcome dr. William inboden. So thank you for joining us. I just had the pleasure of speaking with him for about a half an hour in the green room and got a whole bunch of more on the book. I wish you could have heard that, but one of the things i did share with you down there is i really enjoyed how this book really reads like a novel not, like a history book. And so i want to know what inspired you to write the book that really is now being called the book on Ronald Reagans National Security policy . Well, thanks so much, melissa and great to be with all of you here tonight. Melissa mentioned in her introduction, i spent a total of about somewhere between six and eight months here at the reagan library, upstairs in the archives, this book. So this became a home away from home in. A lot of ways. Its great to be back. I melissa mentioned in my day job im a professor at the university of texas and. One of the reasons why i wrote the book the way i did actually came from this current generation of college students, all of whom are born after the peaceful end of the cold war and not criticize my students. But i started realizing that there was this growing mentality among a lot of them and a lot of other americans that, of course, peaceful end of the cold war would happen. It was almost inevitable. Of course, the world would not be destroyed. A nuclear apocalypse, of course, the soviet union was weak and was going to crumble apart. But you know, some of you here in the room, maybe enough to remember the cold war. I grew up the early days of the cold war. I can i can remember it didnt seem that way at the and what i wanted to do in writing this book is to recapture for readers what the world looked and like too. President reagan and his as every day they were going into the west wing, into the Oval Office Making incredibly difficult decisions with quite literally the fate of the world hanging in the balance and pursuing much more confrontational posture towards the soviets. I think one that was very much warranted. We could talk more about what that looks like, but getting incredible criticism from the media from congressional democrats, from socalled policy experts at the time, saying this wont work, youre wrong. The union is strong and durable and going to last forever. And we just need to manage our relations with it. Theres no way it could actually be defeated or. You know, we cant believe youre pursuing this military and these and calling them the evil empire or saying theyll end up on the ash heap of history because thats just going to provoke a nuclear war. And so i wanted to recapture in writing the book is a narrative where, you know, events unfold in sequence is that president reagan team, even though they were rightly confident in their strategy, they didnt know the story was going to end well. No one could know that for certain. And most of the experts and critics thought otherwise. And so i in some ways, like i said, i it for my students, they can now understand we had a we were very fortunate have the leader we had at the time in the white house and even though know now that the story ended well people know it at the time. That said if you do read the book dont worry the good guys win in the well. And to that point, its one of the things that i kind of noticed as i reading the book. Reporter after reporter after reporter including tom brokaw. You know, scholar after scholar after scholar scoffed at what he was doing. How did he keep his resolve . How did he keep Going Forward . Just pushing through, knowing it was the right thing to do. Yeah, this is where one of the i think insights or revelations from my research is president reagan really was man of ideas. You know, he wouldnt call himself intellectual and. Thats not by any means a criticism. But he was he took ideas seriously. He saw the cold war as primarily this. So most previous just about every previous cold war president democrats and republicans had seen the cold war as primarily a great power contest between two powerful countries. United states, the soviet union. And it happened to be where democracy in a totalitarian dictatorship. President reagan reversed that. He saw the cold war as primarily a battle of ideas between the free, between Americas Free enterprise, democracy and. Communism with its command economy and its dictatorship. And repression. He saw it as primarily that battle of ideas. And so for him, the soviet was not a rival nation to be managed. It was a vile idea to be defeated. He also knew, of course, that were a powerful nation, and thats why we had to do military build up and put the pressure on them that we did and then do the diplomacy with them. But to melissas question about, where he got the resolve to withstand this criticism, you know, from the socalled experts and from the media and really, you know, some in his own party, its because he had been studying and thinking about the soviet and the cold war and virtues of a free society. For decades before he became president. And so he he had the confidence that that he had a much better formulation and strategy this conflict. And he also could point, you know, the previous decades there had been no path to winning and. You know, he did not want this cold war to continue forever. One more one more key to his is confidence. This was another revelation from my research. Is his his faith. He had a deep christian faith. He believed very much that god was watching over him and guiding a lot. He had this for most of his life, but it was especially after he survived the assassination attempt just three months into the presidency, march of 1981. And so when you believe that god is guiding and protecting you, that certainly can give you, i think, a strength and serenity to withstand it. The democrats, the washington post, the new york are trashing you. Well, and that answer about his beliefs and his ideals. Actually, its really nicely into my next question. So you know, Ronald Reagans thoughts and opinions on the cold war and in in communism. You know he was giving speeches in the fifties about that. And so in your book you talked a lot about in the beginning of your book you talked a lot about the relationship that formed in the sixties between Ronald Reagan, eisenhower and all the advice that eisenhower gave, you know, a younger Ronald Reagan. Yeah. And one of the things in your book that you said that eisenhower told reagan that the most use of military force was to win a victory without firing a shot. Yeah. You Flash Forward to the success. And Margaret Thatcher famously that Ronald Reagan, i mean, literally word for word, you know, brought an end to the cold war without firing a shot. So how much do you think of Ronald Reagans sort of belief system and thought about military buildup actually came from eisenhower . Yeah, i think there is i think im glad you picked up on that, because that was, again, another interesting revelation from my research on the book, the Important Role that eisenhower played in the 1960s. And i think thats where number of the seeds of president reagans thinking about the importance military strength for an overall strategy, including for diplomacy came from. But some of it comes from him coming of age during during World War Two and seen the importance of military to the allied victory. And of course that at the time what was a hot war but that america as the arsenal democracy had been able to dictate a lot of the final terms of the of the end of the end of World War Two. And so, of course, that was very formative for eisenhower as. Yes, i think these these ideas from from eisenhower. It was it said its quite a story. Many of you will know that president reagans political debut in 1964 and the goldwater campaign, he gives that time for choosing speech. Eisenhower had been out of office for four years. And at that time was in retirement spending winters in palm springs. And he watches reagans speech on on tv. And hes really taken with this guy. And he said, wow, this is a great political talent. And so he writes him a letter saying, hey, lets meet, get to know each other. So, you know, then mr. Ronald reagan goes to visit president eisenhower in palm springs and eisenhower tells him, listen, you ought to think running for governor of california. You know, i like your ideas, but i even think you may have potential to be president. And so lets talk about Foreign Policy, talk about what i learned as general eisenhower during World War Two. And over the next years, they start meeting regularly for these series of discussions, sessions, seminars if you if you if you will. But, you know, fast to president reagans strategy to actually win cold war. He absolutely wanted to win it. He wanted to defeat communism. As i mentioned earlier, but he wanted to keep the cold war, cold. He did not want it to turn hot because would have meant the death of all of us. And so thats why theres this much more surface dictated understanding we now have of his defense buildup, that it was designed win without fighting to the soviets, to have to negotiate from a posture of weakness rather than strength. And this is why during his eight years in office, even with presiding over, you know, a massive military modernization and and being much more assertive in his rhetoric, he actually only deploys american Ground Troops in combat once in eight years. And thats in the grenada operation, which is a, you know, significant but fairly small scale. Its over and just, you know, just about three, three or four days. And so i think theres a great to be taken away there on the importance of the American Military for actually strengthen our diplomacy and the fact that we have a military build up doesnt mean we necessarily want to get into some of these, you know endless or prolonged wars without good outcomes. Weve had in recent decades. So we talked about president eisenhower in the 1960s and how Ronald Reagan, you know, got a lot of advice and learned from him. The other thing your book talks about, speaking of president s, is once Ronald Reagan president , he gets a lot of ill use the word advice from president. Yeah. So can you talk how president nixons friendship with Ronald Reagan helped or hindered the reagan presidency . Sure. Yeah. This again, another one of these fascinating stories is the reagan and nixon relationship. And its a very complicated one. At times they pretty fierce political rivals, especially those you may be familiar with, the 19 1976 campaign, when reagan is challenging, of course, for president , but hes really running nixons Foreign Policy. And one of the things where both them have some common origins, right . So theyre born to a very humble background in the midwest and then both make their way out to for a new beginning. You know, the land land of land of opportunity and both make their way up to tremendous, tremendous success. Both of them really the two of them kind of dominate republican president ial. From the 1950s on up through the 1980s. So either a nixon or a reagan or, something that both of them is on every ticket from 52 on up to 80, 88 or less strongly influencing as in as in 60 as in 60 as in 64. And yet they have different Foreign Policy visions. Of course, is the architect of which is about coexisting with the soviet union. Its not surrounding them. Nixon was not weak, but the same time, nixon did not believe that the soviet union could ever be defeated. He was more of the camp of we just need to manage our relations them. Lets contain them. Lets not get them. Let them get any further advances around world. But lets not delude ourselves thinking we can actually push back against them. And of course, when he becomes president in 1968, you know, the quagmire of the vietnam war, United States was weaker country and had it had a weaker hand. They also have some differences in asia. Nixon, of course, overseas, the big strategic opening to china in 1972. Again, a bold and i think brilliant move at the time. So im not at all criticizing it. But president reagan, when he looked east, when he looked to asia, he saw japan as key to americas policy in asia and china as secondary. Whereas nixon, when he looked east, he saw during globe was when they looked to the party for look west, the far east, sorry. He saw china as the key and japan is kind of secondary. But for reagan japan at the time, the only democracy in asia americas important security ally. And so they had their differences there. And and yet once president reagan wins presidency in november of 1980, there are at the time only three people alive on the planet who know what it means to be the present United States. I did as gerald ford, who, you know, a wonderful who had done some distinguished service but at the time. Hes just not interested in politics anymore. Hes mostly spent his time on the golf course. Theres jimmy carter upset about jimmy carter, right and then theres richard nixon, who is living in kind of disgraced exile in new york at the. And and he starts writing these really interesting, thoughtful, moving letters, president elect and then president reagan saying essentially, i know weve our differences before, but my only agenda now is to be a resource to you and to serve country and to serve to serve the Republican Party and to do all i can to ensure that your presidency is a success and nixon really means that. And and reagan in turn, president reagan, you know, accepts that graciously, you know, looks past the rivalry. And so over the next eight years, theres steady stream of correspondence. Theres advice on politics, theres advice on policy, theres advice on personnel. Some of nixons advice and personnel is good. Other advice is not so good. And, of course president reagan is very much his own man. Hes making his decisions. Hes confident enough in himself that hell take advice from anyone. Then he will make the decisions on what he what actually wants to do. So its its a remarkable story. So when we were downstairs, we talking about the book. And if youve read it yet or not, but clearly its a book on Ronald Reagan, but its a book about all the people in and around Ronald Reagan in, the white house, around the white house, around the world. This may be a hard question. It may be an easy question, but who, in your opinion, were the most pivotal players, both and internationally to help Ronald Reagan achieve his goals . Yeah, great question. So if you do have a chance to read the book and hope you will, youll find that, of course, president reagans a central actor in in the story in this narrative narrative drama. But i try to spend a decent amount of time on his main advisers, his cabinet secretaries, his his seen his senior staff, you know, the first lady, mrs. Reagan plays a key role. Some of the key leaders, Margaret Thatcher in particular, Brian Mulroney from canada. Course, Mikhail Gorbachev makes a lot of appearances. And so theres a range of important folk important folks in it. And the my my takeaway with with reagans team is it very much was a team of rivals. These very capable strong people devoted to serving him devoted to serving our country but not in agreement with each other. And this comes with white house. Again, i worked in the bush 43. White house was very honored to have done that. But, you know, there was you know, of staff feuding then it just it just comes to the territory. But especially the stakes are as high as they are in the 1980s when, like i said, literally the fate of the world hangs, hangs in the balance. Theres theres going to theres going to be differences. And so one of the other themes of the book is how even amidst the staff feuding and differences, president reagan was still able to achieve strategic successes. To melissas question about some of the most notable ones, bill casey, the cia director, is just a fascinating character really brings cia back to life after the horrible of the carter years and some of the investigations of the 1970s comes into the position very really to mobilize the cia to wage war, soviet communism and a strong support from president reagan in that. But at the same time, casey had his differences with plenty, you know, plenty of others in the administration. The two most important ones think i highlight are bill clark, president reagans National Security adviser for two years, who had previously been his chief of staff when he governor reagan, one of his one of his closest friends, clark, has been too much forgotten by history. He hasnt been treated kindly by some other memoirs written, by some other senior senior reagan. Reagan staff. But i found through my interviews and through, you know, spending lots time in the archives upstairs that a careful look at the historical record shows that as national adviser, judge clark saw it as his mission to take president strategic ideas and implement them and get the American Government to implement them. And even if youre the most powerful in the world is the United States, you can oftentimes powerless getting that massive bureaucracy of the u. S. Government to do what you want. Right. And and so, judge clark was, i think, very loyal to president reagan, very committed to carrying out that vision and very committed to cracking the whip, too, to get, you know, get the bureaucracy of the state department and, the pentagon, to implement president reagans strategy. And then the other one is george shultz, the secretary of state. Six and a half years, a very faithful lieutenant to president reagan, also really understood his vision for bringing pressure on the soviet union, but also extending the hand of diplomatic outreach because he wanted to keep the cold war cold and he wanted to negotiate with the soviets especially gorbachev, but he wanted to negotiate a position of strength. And shultz got that. Shultz also really got president reagans vision for expanding freedom around world, certainly for supporting, you know, christian and dissidents behind the iron curtain, for supporting other democracy movements in asia and latin america, for building up a positive model. The free world, as a contrast to the poverty and oppression of soviet communism and of the communist bloc. And so, so many others. I could highlight both. But clark and shultz are the two that i particularly want to mention. So speaking of people Ronald Reagan worked with, you know, Ronald Reagan office. He knows he wants to bring an end to the cold. He know he knows what he hes got such mission. The assassination attempt. And as hes recovering in the white house writes a letter to brush off that pretty much is ignored. And then russia dies. And then reagan tries it with the next soviet leader and he dies and then tries it again and dies. So finally, you know, gorbachev takes office. What do you think made gorbachev than his predecessors that allowed to be opened . And obviously, if you know, when you read the book and if you know a lot about the different summits, you see it wasnt easy. It still took a lot of negotiate. But he obviously was open to that. What do you think made him different . Yeah, so and again, i to to clarify, i dont speak i didnt do research in the russian archives. And so certainly spent a lot of time trying to read and study and understand gorbachev, you know, based on a lot of time translated documents and interview and other people who worked for them. But to answer melissas question and most, im going to give you a direct answer on that in a second. But i want to give a little bit of context here. There is a debate among a lot of scholars and others who lived in the cold war over who deserves more credit for the peaceful end of the cold war. Reagan or gorbachev. Now, in truth theyre both essential. President reagan himself have said that that gorbachev was essential. But i am concerned that too many scholars of late been giving gorbachev more credit and treating reagan as kind of lucky to have happened to have been there at the time and, you know, clever enough, go along with gorbachevs bold ambit reforms. And i think is fundamentally wrong. And why i give reagan credit than gorbachev, but also why they are able to make an important partnership. President reagan becomes president. He takes the oath of office january of 1981. Gorbachev takes power, is selected by the politburo is the final soviet dictator. In march of 85. Over four years later. What i and again in my research in the archives upstairs reading recently declassified National Security council documents and strategy memos from the Reagan White House is from the beginning president reagan very clear that his strategy win the cold war, put pressure on the soviet union to weaken the soviet economy, to deter the soviet military, included this specific notion that he wanted to pressure the soviet system to produce a reformist leader that he could negotiate with. And it is that right . And so so over the next four years dealing with brezhnev and andropov and chernenko and them, you know, defined president reagans effort to outreach and feeling embattled by his pressure all along president , reagan was looking for a reformist soviet leader and not just passively waiting, hoping one comes along. That was of his strategy. And so thats the chapter in my book on when gorbachev to power and is called waiting for gorbachev a little play on, waiting for godot, because president reagan had been looking and wanting and pressuring the soviet to produce a reformist leader. Thats why he recognized one. When gorbachev finally came along. Now, im not saying that Ronald Reagan by himself forces the soviet union to select gorbachev. Its not, you know, you know, gorbachev selection is a product of a number of internal soviet factors as well. But but scholars, i hope they will take this argument seriously because i didnt see in any break come up with for need to that that was very a very part of president reagans purpose was to pressure that soviet system to produce a reformist leader to feel like weve got no other choice. You know, our old ways of doing things are completely collapsing. Weve got to turn to a reformer. And so you know more directly to melissas question about, you know, what gorbachev was thinking. Gorbachev share reagans goal of avoiding destroying the world in a nuclear war. So he was he was committed to that. And gorbachev generally wanted to ease some of the repression within, the soviet system. He wanted to improve its totally decrepit, sclerotic economy, which couldnt feed own people, which is why they need to rely on American Farmers exporting wheat to them. Right. But at the end of the day, their goals diverge. President reagan wants to defeat and collapse soviet communism. Gorbachev to reform and preserve soviet communism. And so they have very heated debates and discussions. Theyre you know, theyre for summit meetings in geneva, reykjavik and then washington, d. C. And, moscow. Gorbachev recognizes, what reagans strategy is, he even calls him out and says, know, you know, you know, im paraphrasing here a little bit, you know. All right. Because you become on a first name basis, you know i know youre trying to pressure my system to collapse you in presenting it. Well, mikhail, you know. Yeah, thats exactly what im doing right, but. But lets do it without. Causing the world to be destroyed in nuclear war. And finally, ive a lot of questions in, different talks and interviews about the title of my book, why title it the peacemaker. That title in part from gorbachev. Its a tribute he paid to reagan at reagans funeral when he makes a surprise visit to the capital with the president. Reagans body lying in state there. And. And gorbachev says he was my friend and he was a great he was a great peacemaker. So its peace through strength. You know, im very, very, very clear on that. But to the left wing critics who dont like the title of the book and say, take it up with gorbachev of. Well, speaking of left wing critics. Yeah. So the congress and the senate and the American People are very divided by party lines. And so when the iron f treaty was signed, was there overwhelming relief that Ronald Reagans policies had worked. Or were people on the left just, oh, what was going to happen . Reagan had nothing to do with it. Yeah. Yeah. And this is where we look now. And, you know, so many can, i think, rightly recognize that inf treaty. And as you may not recall, its the intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. And it was one of president reagans many signature achievements of abolishing entire of nuclear weapons, really to the advantage of the states, because the soviets had previously had a edge in that. Its give you a little bit the Technical Details they really matter on how devilish these weapons in the late 1970s since jimmy carters weakness soviets had deployed hundreds of ss 20 missiles on the essentially on the far frontier of the soviet union, where theyre theyre all just about eight minute flight time from any capital from from bonn it was west berlin, from london, from from paris. And these missiles were moved. Each one had three warheads on it. They were mobile. They were solid fueled interview who understand the Technical Details here. I means they were pretty much undeterred. Right. They could be launched without warning. We couldnt necessarily detect them. And its the soviets way of holding western hostage and president reagan, one of his goals from when he first takes office is to get rid of those soviet and and again, over tremendous opposition. The american left and from a lot of europeans, he deploys american Intermediaterange Nuclear missiles throughout western our allies agree to that. Our allied leaders agree to do it because they trust reagan and theyre very committed to him. Its a great picture of the importance of allies and the strength that they give us. But again, president doesnt deploy our Nuclear Missiles there because he wants to destroy the whole world and he does it as a negotiating ploy, serious about doing it. Gorbachev says american missiles are like a pistol at the kremlins head and thats exactly what they were. But because of that pressure, gorbachev eventually agrees. We will we will get rid of all of our all our missiles. The soviets that also deployed those same missiles in the far east targeting tokyo, seoul, our allies there, they agree to get rid of them there as well. And so gorbachev agrees to that, signed that treaty with reagan. But the way the american system works is, when a treaty may be signed by the president that needs to be ratified by the senate. And so theres a real question with democrats and republicans in the senate agreed to to ratify it. Some of the liberals in the senate couldnt believe this reagan guy done anything good. They liked. So they were skeptical of it. And theyre saying, well, maybe is destabilizing. Right. And then even some, you know, more i wouldnt even say conservative more. Some of the more hard right republicans in the senate thought that president reagan was giving up too much, that he was willing relinquishing too much. And so he had some challenges to manage both the left, the right there. But he was a master negotiator, not just with but also with members of congress who could be as difficult. And eventually the senate did ratify it, Something Like 92 to 8. And so speaking, you know, i inf treaty and the weapons numerous times in your book you mention how Ronald Reagan that are often said that a nuclear war cannot be won so it should not be fought. Yeah. Now, obviously, you cant speak on behalf of Ronald Reagan, but through all the research that youve done and in preparing for your book, how do you think he would feel today about possibility of a nuclear war . Mean i enough treaty isnt even a treaty. Yeah. Yeah. So again, im im im often asked questions about what would Ronald Reagan do today. Any number of Foreign Policy issues. And i first have to give the disclaimer i dont know you know hes not us. You know, obviously hes not with us anymore. We cant we cant ask him. But then i cant resist speculating a little bit. Okay. Is that. First, i would say that he had, i think, a pretty soft take on nuclear weapons, which is he a there use for americas strategic strength, especially in deterring soviet soviet aggression. But he also hated them and thought that they were ghastly weapons that again could destroy entire world. But he. The biggest risk in the world of nuclear war was necessarily americas new nuclear, but rather soviet communism. And so this is why, again, his peace through strength, formula. He wanted to end soviet communism along the way to then getting rid of nuclear weapons. But the sequencing is very, very important. There. You know, others on the left who wanted nuclear disarmament. Reagan thought they were nuts. He said, look, weve got to get rid of the soviet union. Then we can get rid of nuclear weapons. And this, of course, is his vision for sdi, the strategic defense initiative, which, you know, the Missile Shield that he wanted wanted to build in was very, very visionary. Even if it didnt become operational the time. And again, this really this really terrified. So that context is important for fast forwarding to today that, you know, the questions. You know, when when President Trump recently withdrew from the inf treaty. I i think president reagan would have understood that decision and maybe even would have made it himself because. Again, its a very different strategic moment were in right now where the real strength of one of the the the Peoples Liberation army, the chinese military, one of their core strengths is intermediate range Nuclear Missiles. And they have hundreds of them targeting taiwan, hundreds more targeting japan, targeting our allies in in asia. And so in some ways, it is in asia right now kind of 1983 moment in 1983 is the year that president reagan deployed our Intermediaterange Nuclear missiles in europe. And he wanted eventually to get rid of all of them, but he knew that he would not have a strong negotiating hand to get to have the force, the soviets to get rid of our missiles until we first get rid of until we first deploy arms. So you got to point the gun at them, you got a court that got at them to then get them to negotiate and. So this is why i, i am very favorable to the iaf treaty in my book. I think its one of his most remarkable strategic accomplishments. I also now in the year 2023, im glad that we no longer have that treaty. I think we need to redeploy those missiles to Counter China and eventually we can get to a better negotiating spot there. And so, again, without presuming speak for president reagan, when we look at how he first deployed the missiles before negotiating the treaty. I think that sequencing really matters. So speaking, Ronald Reagan and the rest of the world. So obviously i know a us president works not just for u. S. Interests but for international interests. Of course, i know everything that Ronald Reagan did for. You know, bringing an end to communism, ending the cold war. But in reading your book and thats something that people should know, this is not just about a book about Ronald Reagan and gorbachev and communism. This is a book about the world mean. Its in your title, right . A world on the brink. He did so much for the entire landscape of the world. So if you were to remove the cold war, communism part of your book, what might you say . It would be one of his other great accomplishments throughout his presidency. Yeah. No, thank you for asking this, melissa, because again, the cold war, of course, is a central theme there in the title. Its mostly what ive been talking about. But again if you do read the book, youll see that theres a lot of other issues in there as well. Counterterrorism, the middle east, asia, the International Economic order. And going back, your first question about why i wrote it as a narrative that i gave. The main reason is i wanted to recapture what it looked and felt like for people at the time when making these really difficult decisions like cold war. But theres another reason. This is one that i came to appreciate having, worked in the white house myself, is president have to manage dozens, hundreds of really difficult issues all at the same time. And so even while president reagan was pressuring soviet union or negotiating with gorbachev or making Big Decisions, our military modernization, he was also having to manage tensions with japan and hostage crises and terrorist strikes in the middle east and the very, you know, worries about threats against against taiwan, all these other issues crashing in on him simultaneously. And i try to weave through the book so that readers can even while hes making Big Decisions on the soviet union, the cold war, hes dealing with 20 or 30 or 40 other issues. Not to mention, of course, the more mundane ones of, you know, well, you know, miss oklahoma came in to visit today and, you know, the fourth graders from spokane who won the fourth contest contest here. Im not making light of these these things are important for being the president united and they take up your time and you know i dont put every last one of those in the book on their. So to melissas question about some of his other big accomplishments, ill just highlight two. He presided over not just the restoration of the america economy. And you bringing the United States back to being the leading economy in the world, but really a tremendous boom across the entire free world. European economies were a mess when when he when he took office, some of the asian ones been growing, but they had some real trade trade imbalances there. America was mired in poverty and. He had a real vision for you, an open trade in order for free everywhere and you look, you know, the free world. Second me really boom to the 1980s and as the british economy gets better, the west German Economy gets better and the japanese grows that those also up being really good for the american economy. But this is why there were some by the time he office theres so much affection for him globally across the free world as many of these you know canadians had been inspired by his example. Thats they elected Brian Mulroney in 1984 was committed to free markets. West germans had been inspired by reagans and thats why they elect helmut kohl, who is much more committed to free markets. I could go through another one is similarly the growth of of Political Freedom and democracy. Ill just rattle the countries that undergo peaceful transitions. Thanks in part, president reagans influence and leadership all during this time. Taiwan goes from dictatorship to democracy. South korea military dictatorship to democracy. The Philippines Military dictatorship to democracy. Chile el salvador. Argentina. Brazil and about 15 others. All those place peacefully. All those are supported by president reagan and union and the United States. And of course, central and eastern europe, which you know, shortly after he leaves office, go from communist to peaceful democracies as. Well. But it is not just the growth freedom with the collapse of soviet communism. It is the Global Growth of freedom there has never before in Human History been a comparable growth in human as there was in that ten year period from 1980 to 1990. Almost all of it certainly influenced inspired by president reagans president reagans policies. And so that needs to be appreciated as a part of his legacy. Well. And i hope my book helps tell that story, too. So i easily have probably one or two more dozen questions, but i think that was such great ending to this conversation. So i want to actually open it up to you and audience if you have any questions. We have a handful of staff in the back microphones, so please wait for the microphone to come to you before you ask your question. This is being recorded. I cant. Sent down here to speak so we can know. Oh, thank you very much. That was a wonderful full presentation. I curious about what position was on sdi in 1983 when he first introduced that notion. Everybody thought that was and it wasnt just the it wasnt just others. It was also some of the people in his own administration who thought, what are you thinking . Do you believe that he, as he first introduced it. Yeah, this is a great question. Its a really important episode in his in his presidency. And ill give you a little bit more on the origins of it. The origin of sdi go back to 1979 before you know, hes out of the california governorship, hes getting ready run for president. But he hasnt even declared his candidacy yet. In the summer of 1979, you know well call him governor reagan was out of the governorship at the time. Governor reagan and a couple of aides visit cheyenne outside colorado springs, where the norwich headquarters are. Right. And so buried deep inside the mountain its its its the bunker where our Radar Systems are detect soviet missiles or other hostile activity coming over coming over the north pole and. Its governor reagan has been given the tour by the three star general in charge. By the way, the north north end is also where tracked santa claus on christmas eve. So anyway, that i think everyone should know north so hes in this hardened bunker. Hes seen even by 1979 standards is incredibly sophisticated and screams you know covering covering every wall there and the generals telling them, you know, governor reagan, if the soviets launch know on that screen there, we can detect their their missiles second by second, as are coming over the north pole, then over canada. And its really precise. Well know exactly where theyre going. And then governor reagan asks what he thinks is the obvious follow up question . Well, okay, so we can the missiles, but what do we do to stop them . And the general says, oh, well, we cant do anything to stop them. Governor reagan says, well, what if theres a direct hit on this mountain where you are with the ss 18 . That was the biggest soviet nuclear missile. And the general said, oh, wed be toast. And it was you know, we can look back and laugh now. Its kind of humorous. But at the time it was really frightening and disturbing for governor reagan realizing. Okay. Weve got this Great Technology to track missiles, but we cant protect ourselves against. This is insanity. And again, if theres any nuclear strategist in the room, youll remember that there was actually an acronym, this mad mutual assured destruction. It says that we couldnt ourselves against soviet missiles. How do we guarantee the soviets dont launch against us. Well, we threatened that will launch against them and well destroy you know, well kill 100 million russians and then they will kill 150 million americans. And so its that it was called the balance of terror or mutual assured destruction. Well, that had kind of worked for the previous decades of the cold war and that the world hadnt been destroyed in exchange. But that is nothing to rely on. Right you know, what about what if . Theres an accidental launch. What if the has a glitch and the soviets weve launched when we havent. And this actually happened a couple of times and so president reagan he had this great way taking a very sophisticated and boiling it down to something simple. He well what if our Nuclear Strategy was predicated on actually saving lives instead of killing them right on actually defending american rather than just threatening the soviet people. And so based on that, he his first few years as president thinking this and could we actually do a missile . But it was a very radical his secretary defense wasnt really keen on it. The secretary of state wasnt real keen on. A couple of members of the joint chiefs were National Security adviser bud mcfarlane was. And so he worked for that little team to up with this idea of of totally reframing the strategic balance in the cold war by saying we will build a Missile Shield to defend ourselves. When he it it is very controversial. And i to you the oversimplified controversy. Most american scientific experts scientist physicists. All that thought it wouldnt work. And so they opposed it they said this wont work. This is this is this is a fantasy. Ted kennedy calls it star wars. You know, its out of a Science Fiction movie. It wont work. So they oppose it. Most american arms control experts had become very committed to. This mutually assured destruction. They actually thought president reagans sdi would work. And so they also it. Right. So half of them oppose it because. It wont work. The other half oppose it because i think it will work. But if everyone is everyone is opposed to it. The soviets, meanwhile, are convinced it will work because they think technology is so amazing. And weve got Silicon Valley and that kind of stuff. And so theyre mesmerized by american technology. And so president reagan actually sits down with gorbachev for these series of summit meetings, they have if you read the transcripts of these, and theyre absolutely fascinating. Like i said, ive read every word of them. Gorbachev is just terrified by sdi because he had thought that his ace in the hole was the soviets had roughly twice many Nuclear Missiles as the United States did, and that they had bigger ones, even though he knew the soviet economy was mess, even though he knew that his people hated communism, even though he knew that their military was very demoralized at least they had these big nukes which could blackmail americans. And when he sees president reagan talking about potentially developing sdi, gorbachev realizes, okay, you know, now you the last good ace card i had to play. I cant play that anymore. And it plays a very Important Role. Gorbachev eventually conceding so much the soviet union collapsing. So its again for those who the critics out there who say, oh, you know, reagan wasnt a man of ideas or he just did what his staff told him, or hes reading off the cue cards. The sdi story alone as a case study in president ial leadership of a president going to even overruling his own advisors, overruling conventional wisdom and saying no, were going to do it my way, because i think this is the best way, no matter what the critics may say. And i think history has vindicated him. Great answer. Tricia had somebody here . Yeah, mines kind of an the wall question. One, i thought arkansas was the land of opportunity. Oh, you said california then. Are you did you have to out here to write because theres no other conservative people at the university of texas probably anyway. Well, you know they do call it they dont call it peoples republic of austin for ever no reason. So yes i am am somewhat something of a fish out of water there. And as i said, this really was a home away from home and, you know, no no comment on arkansas. So im actually a native of arizona myself. My parents were likewise came from humble backgrounds in midwest and moved to arizona because its better in the land of opportunity too. So yeah, and i think tricia has some of that over. Oh, yes. Can you comment the quality and, the accuracy of the intel legends about soviet unions capabilities and intentions that was brought to the president and how consumed and used information . Because my recollection is there were there were problems in that about that with that intelligence and he seems have used it quite capably even with its shortcomings. Can you comment on that . Thank you for asking this question. Did you plant that question . I did. Okay. You i think thats another question. Again, is a really important part of the story i hope you know, those of you, ill quit plugging the book, but theres a lot of it in the book. And this is where we also benefit. It now is scholars from the last few years, a few cia assessments and other records havent been declassified. So i mentioned bill. Bill earlier as this, you know, i said, you know, wonderfully energetic and creative cia director and director casey was very effective in getting the director of operations. This is these are the case officers are the spies to be really much more aggressive in going after soviet communism and supporting the reagan doctrine. But casey had some problems with a lot of the cia analysts and and, you know, i think the record shows that quite a few cia analysts had a much more positive view of soviet strengths. They thought the soviet economy was much more was going to continue at least 1 to 2 per year. They didnt see it as so vulnerable they didnt the soviet political system as very vulnerable and casey himself would be at this. But he also dealt with the analysts are saying, im going to take it in. So president reagan would be reading a lot of these cia assessments, which were telling him, that the soviet economy was more robust and durable and was going to keep going, essentially telling him your strategy, pressuring this economy isnt going to, but this is where i go back to him, him being a man of ideas would take as many inputs as he could, would as much as he could, but also had some of his own convictions. And this is where i think theres two sources that come into him having the confidence to say, i think the soviet economy is a lot more and vulnerable. Part of it is his convictions. He just felt as a as a matter of principle that free markets are more efficient, more productive or more can do do stuff to human prosperity and Economic Growth and a command economy that does respect property rights, that that, you know, tells its people what they can buy and sell and own, which it which was very, very little, that its not even able to feed its own people. It needs to buy american grain. It just continue. And and he thought. Wait a minute. Why are we even trusting a lot of these soviet economic figures the kremlin is producing theyre a bunch of lies, right. So a part of it is based on his free market conviction. He was just very suspicious of. Some of these cia estimates saying 70, the economy is pretty strong. But theres another source that he was remember, as i mentioned before, hes committed to supporting soviet dissidents. The the christians and and political dissidents who did not like living under the kremlins tyranny and oppression who who would often be imprisoned for their criticisms and for working against it. And whenever he was able to get one of them freed from the gulag, he negotiated the freedom and would they would receive asylum in states president reagan would meet with them in the oval office and he would talk them. Hed say, tell me, whats it like living in the soviet system . What do think of the government . And you hear these from all these exiled dissidents about miles, bread lines. And no one trust the government. You cant even trust the economic were getting, he thought. Wait a minute. Im getting the cias estimate with these charts and these figures saying you theyll keep growing at 2 a year. But im hearing from dozens of these dissidents who have actually lived in that system that its all a bunch of lies. And that also gave him the confidence to keep pressure pressing. And so thats where as much i have, like i said, you know, Great Respect and appreciation for so many friends and faithful americans whove served in the cia the cias Economic Analysis is of the soviet communism when the 1980s are not one of its best best episodes. Um, theres a question in the front row. Tricia, you can get a yeah. This gentleman over by the way, quick night. Bob gates, many of you may know later became cia director himself. He read my book in draft form, cover to cover and sent me a very nice letter afterwards saying he thinks i got the story right about the cia and and admitting that they got a number of things wrong. Wrong then, too. Take it from bob himself. Yeah. Hes a wonderful man. Reagans first election took place against the backdrop of the iranian crisis, and there were a few months in between his election and the inauguration, did he come into office with an action plan to get the hostages out and to end the crisis. So, so great question. And let me give you a little more context just on that on the challenges that he inherited and this goes back to what i often try to remind my students just what a difficult hand it was, you know, so when he is elected in november of 1980, the United States is just bad shape, you know, at the forefront of course, is at that point it had been year and a half that 52 americans had been held hostage. The you know, the radical islamist regime in tehran. Oh, come back to a direct answer to your question. The second there, but also the soviets invaded afghanistan a year before the United States had withdrawn in disgrace. Vietnam just eight years earlier. The american combat troop had left vietnam eight years, almost the day when president reagan was was inaugurated. Right. So america just looked weak and humiliated. You know, our economy was a mess. We just looked weak and humiliated on the global stage, exemplified by the iran run hostage crisis, he throughout the campaign had very much wanted to see the hostages released. I think there is a a myth out there about this socalled october surprise that some of president reagans emissaries quietly asked the iranians to hold to the hostages until he becomes president. I think theres any evidence for that. But he even, while he and carter were very fierce political, there were back channel discussions between the Carter Administration and its hostage negotiators and the reagan campaign, because the carter people knew reagan does win. We will make sure that his team as well will inform when theyre coming in. And he was getting some indications that the iranians were ready to release the ready to the hostages, then a couple of weeks before he actually going to be sworn in, he and the Carter Administration, both get word that the iranians have decided will release the hostages. And so he knows that hes not, you know, assuming that thats going to actually take place. Hes got the relief, knowing that theyre going to be released. But the iranians, it partly because they feared reagan, but partly because they hated carter and wanted to humiliate him one more time. It even comes down comes down to this at the morning of the inaugural. And as president reagan, president elect and outgoing president carter are riding in the limousine down to the to take the oath of office, the iranians release the and they put them in the airplane on the tarmac in tehran. But then they tell the airplane, you cant take off until. Reagan is sworn in as president because we dont want the carter to get any out of this. Right. You know, its a very vital, symbolic humiliation of of carter that the plane wont actually take until carter is officially expresident. So thats thats how it plays out. So we have time for one final question. I think tricia has it right there. I was going to ask, what was your of the relationship, president reagan and john the second and lech walesa in trying to enable the polish people and Eastern European countries to become free to the soviet yoke and also comparing the fact that they both were assassinated very closely in time each other and actually john paul, second by a soviet inspired bulgarian secret agent. Yes. Yes, a great question. Again, its a very important part of the story. So even though president reagan is protestant, of course, john paul two is in, second is catholic theres a strong and Close Partnership between them and a real personal affinity. And it goes to when in 1978, when Pope John Paul the second becomes the first first polish pope, the first nonitalian pope in 500 years, then, you know, reagan is out of office. Hes exgovernor reagan, but hes doing his weekly radio and devotes a couple of radio to how remarkable it is that there is this polish pope, especially on his first visit back to back to poland and seeing the acclaim. And he even then identifies it saying this is going to be a very notable leader. He has clearly struck fear into the hearts of the of the kremlin as well as the communist regime in poland. And so hes predisposed be very favorable to to the pope. Then, of course, as you mentioned the assassination attempts become in a very obviously tragic a key bonding moment only six weeks apart. I think its, you know late march and then early early may that president reagan is almost assassinated. The pope is almost assassinated both them come within inches death. If the bullet would have been just a millimeter, you know, one way or another. And in both cases, they would not have lived in. Both feel that god spares them in part to bring down soviet communism and it forges a real bond between them, not just having survived that trauma. Like you said, this sense of doing, providentially doing gods gods will. And because president reagan sees the cold war as in part a spiritual conflict, he to do all he can to support protestants and catholics and under the tyrannical yoke of soviet soviet communism. He sees its atheism as one of its one of its key vulnerabilities. And so in addition to building real friendship, the pope they forged, like i said, a very effective partnership. The is very regularly sharing intelligence that were getting intelligence with the vatican were getting from behind the iron curtain. Not all that bad economic assessments and likewise popes got a Great Network of sources of cardinals and bishops and priests behind the iron curtain and. He is sharing information with the cia in the state department that hes getting from there. So theres deep intelligence collaboration to do. And, of course, the solidarity movement, poland is absolutely key. Seth jones, a great scholar in washington, d. C. , has been written, a wonderful book on this called a covert action all about the reagan administration, the vatican partnering to support the solidarity. Again, its all about bringing pressure on the soviet system from every direction, not just militarily, not just economically, supporting peaceful people. Faith living behind the iron curtain, who who did test the test the communist systems that are oppressing them, supporting them, keeping their flames of faith alive, keep their protests protest alive and also again becomes very, very threatening to gorbachev and the soviet system. So a very important part of the story. So i want to thank you for coming and for all of you i saw there was so many hands up than we got to. So please this book is a fascinating read. Ive been here over two decades. I learned so much reading this book, so buy a book, come to the bookstore to get a hand. Feel free to ask your question in there. And again, thank you so much for coming. Really appreciate you being here. Thank you. Its to take ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. Please remain in your seats as our vip guests moves into the next room. Thank you again. We hope to see you at our next