Iran 2009 vs. USSR 1991 – A Study in Contrasts (and Leadership)
Diplomacy, Liberals — By Harrison on June 24, 2009 at 6:00 am
USSR in 1991.
There have been plenty of cries from Obama Defenders that his silence (until yesterday sort of) was the wise and prudent thing to do… as if not waiting the entire weekend to make a strong statement would have somehow caused Iran’s mullahs to blame America for their troubles (hint: they did so anyway). As a fond believer in those who don’t know history being condemned to repeat it let’s take a look at another example of a major country going through a revolution with the government paralyzed and under seige and, lastly, what the U.S. president at the time decided to do about it.
Rewind to 1991… The Soviet Union was still (barely) alive, it is in August, and Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev was pressing ahead with reforms that, for some hardliners, proved unpopular. What happened for three days in August probably heavily contributed towards the demise of the USSR at the end of that year, but Gorbachev was thrown out of office and held prisoner in Crimea while Boris Yelstin, who had not been arrested, ended up making one of the most famous political speeches from the turret of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House.
Before this event played out, however, there was a swift and sure reaction from the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush:
We are deeply disturbed by the events of the last hours in the Soviet Union and condemn the unconstitutional resort to force. This misguided and illegitimate effort by-passes both Soviet law and the will of the Soviet peoples.
In these circumstances, U.S. policy will be based on the following guidelines:
– We support all constitutionally elected leaders and oppose the use of force or intimidation to suppress them or restrict their right to free speech;
– We call upon the Soviet Union to abide by its international treaties and commitments, including its commitments to respect basic human rights and democratic practices under the Helsinki Accords, and the Charter of Paris;
– We will avoid in every possible way actions that would lend legitimacy or support to this coup effort;
– At the same time, we will not support economic aid programs if adherence to extra-constitutional means continues.
The above statements were made on August 19, 1991. The coup occurred the same day. Contrast this with President Obama’s weekend delay of using even the word “condemn.” A story from the New York Times summarized President Bush’s decisive stand on the matter:
In a sharp condemnation of the coup that overthrew President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, President Bush made a blunt demand today for Mr. Gorbachev’s restoration to power and said the United States did not accept the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed new Soviet Government.
Back at the White House after rushing from his vacation home here, Mr. Bush issued a strongly worded statement that followed a day of consultations with other leaders of the Western alliance and a concerted effort to squeeze the new Soviet leadership by freezing economic aid programs. He decried the coup as a “misguided and illegitimate effort” that “bypasses both Soviet law and the will of the Soviet peoples.”
Iran 2009.
Mind you that the Soviet Union represented a 1,000 fold greater threat than Iran does to the United States today. The USSR had thousands of nuclear tipped missiles pointed at this country, a massive, heavily armed military, control of Eastern Europe, and the ability to kill tens of millions using conventional arms and billions with nuclear weapons. Did President Bush hesitate? Was he mealy mouthed about his position? No… he clearly and forcefully stated his position and that of the United States and he did so immediately upon learning of the coup.
Contrast this stand with President Obama’s weekend pause.
The situations are not exactly the same (they rarely are) but the basic elements are the same. In both cases the democratic process was not upheld, the will of the people was not upheld, and the government used violence against its citizens.
The coup in the Soviet Union failed three days after is began. President Bush could have played it safe like President Obama is doing today, he could have kept quiet, he could have waited until events played out like President Obama has done when he said this on June 23, 2009:
“Because I think that we don’t know yet how this thing is going to play out.”
Being President of the United States is different from being a community organizer and voting “present” while in the U.S. Senate 129 times… it is about leadership.
Someone let Obama know because there are plenty of Iranians yearning to breathe freed and have their vote actually count!
Like this post? Subscribe to the Conservative perspective of Just Politics..? via RSS or Email and enjoy great articles like this every day or spread the word with one of the share buttons below!
Related posts:
- Staying Quiet on Iran Paid Off (Not)!
Iran Says No To U.S. Nuke Deadline
North Korea Gets Tough Love, Iran Gets Some Love
Obama Won’t Speak Out on Iran but He Will on “Racial” Arrest
Obama and the Media’s Iran Blindspot
Spaced Out
Tweet This
Digg This
Delicious
Stumble it
Facebook
11 Comments
President Obama has courage and fortitude when it comes to swatting flies on his wrist..but looks like he lacks a little spine when it comes to taking on the rest of the world..
Megaman the Madman´s last blog ..Obama is a homicidal maniac!
Thanks for your comment. With the fly, Obama knew what the result would be!
Harrison,
I didnt read your post, only the heading. And I knew enough.
Reagon didn’t do anything to bring the USSR down, pas du tout, niente:
Among the many causes of Soviet collapse two words stand out, and they aren’t Ronald Reagan.
They are rock and radiation.
The GOP military’s 1980s attempt to “spend the Soviets into oblivion” certainly feathered the nests of the defense contractors who contributed to Reagan’s campaigns, and who still fatten George W. Bush. Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton and an unholy host of GOP insiders have scored billions in profits from Iran-Contra to Star Wars to Desert Storm to Iraq.
But these were not the people who brought down the Kremlin. If anything, they prolonged Soviet rule with the unifying threat of apocalyptic attack.
No, it was rock & roll that wrecked the USSR. From the late 1960s on, the steady beat of the Beatles and Motown, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix, shattered Stalinism at its stodgy core.
Precisely the things most hated by the Reagan’s rightist culture warriors here eroded and helped dissolve the old-time Soviet culture there. Beamed in by radio, smuggled in on records and tapes, the “youth music” was unstoppable.
When Mikhail Gorbachev announced Perestroika, it was at least in partial response to the irresistible subversion of the western counterculture. Rock and roll was doing to the remnants of Stalin’s Russia what it had already done to Eisenhower’s America.
The final blow came not from Ronald Reagan’s beloved nuclear weapons, but from the Soviets’ own Three Mile Island.
After Chernobyl Unit Four exploded on April 26, 1986, Swedish radiation monitors detected huge clouds of radiation pouring out of the Ukraine. Gorbachev lied about it. Critical days passed before his “open” regime acknowledged the catastrophe.
As apocalyptic radiation poured over their land and into their bodies, millions of Soviet citizens were infuriated to learn from sources outside their country how horrific the disaster really was—and that their lives were in genuine danger. Cancer, birth defects, stillbirths and more soared out of control. Gorbachev’s credibility was forever shattered.
Soon a staggering 800,000 draftees—”liquidators”— were forced into deadly manual clean-up. The horrific maelstrom of resulting disease fed a fierce organization parallel to the US’s Vietnam Vets Against the War that remains an uncompromising political force throughout the former Soviet Union.
With the fury aimed at Gorbachev came devastating economic fallout. Untold billions went to evacuate and quarantine the Chernobyl region. The costs are still escalating. The danger of a renewed melt-down still boils beneath the surface.
The epidemic of radiation-related diseases has also taken a huge psychological toll, with countless evacuees and victims—many of them children—still in pitiable condition.
Himself a pusher of atomic power since his “Death Valley Days” working for General Electric, Reagan never mentioned the devastating impacts of Chernobyl. He also never thanked the Beatles…)) Hahaha..))!
But a cultural revolution and a nuclear malfunction cracked the Kremlin’s core. Reagan’s beloved Cold War made his GOP buddies even richer. But it was rock and radiation that finally did in the Soviets.
Aldus said Hans and Harvey Wasserman
Hans´s last blog ..Revolutionary Road…: Live from Baharestan Sq…
Hans it is clear from your response that you didn’t read the article as it had nothing to do with your long rambling unfocused comment. In the future please stay on topic because otherwise I’ll have to edit your comments.
What? It didn’t? The article I read, and I’l reread it, seems to compare Iran to the Soviet Union and the Obama response to Reagan/Bush I.
Brian Anderson´s last blog ..Obama responds to Iranian protests; Tricky Dick’s tapes
Reagan was not in office in 1991 and he was not mentioned in the article.
I am not sure if Gorbechev lied about Chernobyl. In “Arsenals of Folly”, Rhodes points out that Stalinist influence on information dissemination among departments had more to do with Gorbechev’s reporting of the issues.
Further, the USSR had their own “3 mile island” incident, and it wasn’t Chernobyl. Chernobyl was just the most famous. Again, “Arsenals of Folly” details a few of these frightening occurences.
Um….i am not sure if you are joking, but i really do not see the correlation between rock and roll music and the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. To give those artists that amount of credit seems rather perverse.
@Harrison, thanks that I passed and you didn’t edited what I wrote.:)
Indeed, it’s not related to your post although, slightly; Since you are dividing the world in Obama Defenders and anti-Obama’s you are comparing here Oranges with Apples.
The whole scenery of the 1991 events are totally not to compare what happens in Iran these days. And for sure not how the president of the USA has/must react.
Don’t talk over the head of the Iranians who are literally fighting for their lives only with the aim to attack your president.
Look at the Russia of today and look how the USA presidents since GH Bush ‘handled’ the Russian threat, which exist more than ever. Then you will see a complete failure on behalf of the Americans, especially G.W. Bush and Clinton.
@JD, of course I was joking…but don’t throw a book of someone to me as counter argument. We call that an ad populum argument.
Sorry for my English, its not my native language
kindest
hans
Hans´s last blog ..Day Opening – June 25
“ad poppulum” litterally means “appeal to the people”, and is used when the argument of the masses believing in something, so it must be true.
i merely read a relevant book on the subject and reflected my opinion. so no, “ad populum” does not apply to my arguments.
if you mean “ad populum” in that the book took many opinions, then read the book and decide for yourself.
No need to apologize, Hans. You’re doing quite well here with your Dutch accent.
What I’ve seen (reading different blogs, in the last few months) is that all Europeans rewrite American History, and no side (if it’s American) is ever right.
Every major disaster before was always Dubya’s fault. Now Obama is starting to share some blame. Would there be some jealousy involved? Or maybe resentment? Because, in some way, so much depends, in Europe, on whether USA will provide money or not.
To dispute that Reagan had some influence in the fall of communism is revisionism. I remember very well those days. I was there! To mention the past alcoholism of a (at-least-8-year-sober) president brings an argument to the level of pettiness. Not interesting….
My prime minister (Canada) had no problem telling STRONGLY to the government of Iran to mind their manners when dealing with their protestors. I have no reason to attack or defend Obama. I just wish he had raised his voice a bit louder when addressing Iran so-called elected government.
All the best to all of you. Keep talking. I’m listening….
BTW, I’m French-Canadian. Forgive my English…