Peace in Our Time

It is ever more difficult to tell the difference between Ronald Carter and Jimmy Reagan.

With the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, it dawned at long last on Carter that the USSR is an evil empire. Reagan started from that conviction, but ended up a victim of two pernicious fallacies: first, that wars are due to weapons, not to the totalitarian systems that wield them; and second, that the Mafia becomes a legitimate treaty partner when it is headed by a more competent and more wily Godfather.

As the media continue their orgy of summit fever, much will be written about the deal that Reagan cut with the Soviets: the reinstallation of the same nuclear warheads in different missiles; the exposure of the same targets to these other missiles; the pro-hibition of the powerful and advanced US cruise missile; the abandonment of weapons meant to counter the Soviets' over-whelming and unabatedly continuing strength in conventional weapons; and more such details which are sadly true, but not fundamental.

In claiming to be pro-science, this newsletter is guided by a simple principle: ignore the words and look at the facts. That is particularly important with Jimmy Reagan, president of all the people, who aims to please conservatives with his speeches, and the "liberal" media with his actions. The myth about the Reagan massive arms buildup is particularly pernicious, because it is pushed by both sides: by the anti-defense crowd to point to the "bloated" military spending, and by the administration to boast about "America standing tall again."

But in the seven years of massive buildup, the number of tanks has increased by 11%; of submarines, by 8%; of surface ships, by 10%; the number of ICBMs has decreased by 5%, and that of bombers has decreased by 16%. In spending (wasteful or not), Reagan's proposed budget has not even kept up with Carter's projections; and Congress will continue to cut it further still. That's a buildup?

This is in keeping with saving the PLO in 1984, giving little or no help to anti-Soviet guerrillas in Angola and Mozambique, feet-dragging over supplying Afghan guerrillas with effective; weapons, refusing to give shelter to Soviet defectors there, doing nothing about the KAL-007 massacre, nothing about Maj. Nicholson's murder, nothing about Miroslav Medvid's kidnap-ing, nothing about Soviet treaty violations. These are the policies of an appeasing weakling; and they have now culminated in signing a treaty with the enemies of mankind.

The main lesson of history is that men do not learn its lessons. Younger readers may need to be reminded that the words in the headline were exclaimed by Neville Chamberlain on returning from Munich in 1938; and waving the agreement with Hitler, he went on: "See, here is a paper that bears his name."

Jubilation over the preservation of peace was almost univer-sal. But Winston Churchill, then in the political wilderness, stood up in the House of Commons: "What I find unendurable is the sense . . . of our existence becoming dependent on their goodwill and pleasure. . .

"This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."