In context, Zakaria is talking about Bush's response later in 1989, not the period of the A&M speech.
Bush did indeed start out with a slightly harder stance towards the USSR than Reagan had ended up with, taking some criticism at first for vacilating and ended up with that moderately critical speech at TAMU late in the spring.
In the fall though, as events played out with Hungary opening the border, the GDR collapsing, the Velvet Revolution in Prague and the not-so-velvet revolution in Romania, Bush deliberately took a welcoming but restrained position so as to not rub it in Moscow's face or to give ammunition to Gorby's conservative critics. That's clearly the period Zakaria is talking about.
There's also famous Bush "caution" particularly in 1991 where he did not press on the issue of separatism in the USSR, famously in his "Chicken Kiev" speech (I think Bill Safire termed it that) and also in encouraging Yugoslavs to stay together. There were other voices calling on Bush to push harder to bring about not just reform but a full-on collapse of the USSR. In the end, the hardliners brought that on themselves with their coup, but Bush was trying to faciliate a soft landing.
Anyway, Zakaria has his history right.
To educate yourself on the sequencing, good places to start are Bush & Scowcroft's memior "A World Transformed"; Dan Oberdorfer's "The Turn", or Ray Garthoff's "The Great Transition".
Current Events » in reply to George H. W. Bush
Zakaria is talking about the fall of 1989
The whole thread (42 posts)
- You have got to be kidding me.
- re: You have got to be kidding me.
- Actually, it's too soon to comment.
- More moral support would be nice.
- I'm certainly glad you had something important to say. (n/t)
- Explain the moral high ground the US has here. Marsby, or anyone.
- The Voice of Iran
- There have been a few posts.
- Indeed.