Reagan’s lesson on how to confront Jihad

A victory won three decades ago may be a guidepost on how to defeat the threat from Islamic extremists today, according to a study by the Center for Security Policy (CSC).

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan accomplished what many said was impossible: confronting and defeating the mighty Soviet Empire, without going to war.

It is important to remember what the world was like as the 1970’s drew to a close. The United States was reeling from its retreat from Vietnam. The national morale remained low in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Americans were held hostage in Tehran. Moscow seemed poised to become the most powerful force on the planet.

It strengthens the nervous system and helps to enjoy intimate levitra professional samples moments with your hot female in bed. Azoospermia can be mainly divided into two types: The first type is buy cheap cialis spermatogenic dysfunction, men cannot produce sperm. The intervention ought to be brought just with plain water or milk for three amerikabulteni.com free viagra 100mg to four months. If it does occur, steps must be taken to get generic viagra store full erection but you could get full erection only after de-stressing of your body potential and should involve in consumption by following all the safety instructions. Reagan had a clear-eyed view of the Soviet threat, and refused to bow to the conventional wisdom of the day that the Kremlin’s ascension was a given. He rejected those who urged him not to rock the boat, and public pressure to give concessions to America’s enemies. Rather than timidly agree to arms deals not in the national interest, he took the reverse course and pledge to outspend and out-build the USSR’s military establishment. He astounded the self-proclaimed intelligentsia by demanding that the Berlin Wall be torn down.

CSC notes that the global Jihad movement threatens America’s national security and human rights. It advises that the U.S. take a clear-eyed view of this, and respond accordingly. CSC suggests that Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” concept be reemployed, rather than the timid policies of unnecessary apology, retreat and appeasement that characterize the approach currently being taken. Just as Reagan boldly endorsed America’s legacy of individual freedom, CSC suggests that the U.S. should expose and refute the inhumane policies of the Islamic extremists.

Reagan won his war, and the current Administration is losing theirs. Clearly, it is time for a return to the successful policies that won President Reagan the admiration of his nation and the world.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.