Certain leftist bloggers pretend that because George Shultz (former Secretary of State under Reagan) apparently is happy with Obama’s call for the USA to unilaterally disarm at a time when the Islamic Republic of Iran is seeking nukes, that Reagan would have agreed with Shultz. This is taken as ipso facto evidence that Reagan would have been seen as some wild-eyed liberal by today’s standards. I believe it is important to understand how fallacious that way of thinking really is, as it serves as a lesson of the harms of compassionate conservatism.

Just because George Shultz says something does not mean Reagan would have agreed. And even if Reagan would have agreed (which we have no idea about), it doesn’t make it right. I don’t worship at the alter of Reagan. Moreover, in any case, Shultz was responsible for sending in the U.S. Marines into Lebanon during the 1980s, and it was not to help Israel finish the job, but rather to PREVENT Israel from finishing the job. He literally sent in the U.S. Marines to “protect” the armed ‘Palestinian’ terror camps in Lebanon. And it was also Shultz that opened up a “dialogue” (and legitimization) of the terror group, the PLO. Source. This is Shultz’s legacy and what he remains most famous for.

It is ultimately impossible to know what Reagan would have believed vis-a-vis unilateral disarmament, as practiced under Obama. And certainly there is no reason to think Shultz’s opinion in 2010 is reflective of what Reagan’s opinion would have been in 2010. After all, Frank Gaffney was responsible for Reagan’s nuclear policy, and he has an exactly opposite opinion than George Schultz.

In fact, the U.S. Marines’ presence in Lebanon helped to catapult Hizballah to the world stage. The ‘Palestinians’ were shooting at Shia Lebanese, and mass murdering them in the 1970s and 1980s. This is what brought about the rise of Amal, which was one of the predecessors of Hizballah – aka, ‘Palestinian’ violence against Shia Lebanese! The U.S. Marines came into Lebanon in order to protect the ‘Palestinians,’ and insodoing, ended up killing scores of Druze in the Schuf Mountains. Source. This was later used as justification for the Hizballah attack on the Marine barracks in 1983, which killed 241 U.S. Marines.

It is a travesty that the U.S. Marines were ever sent to Lebanon to begin with, which made them sitting ducks for jihadists. They were not sent in to protect the Maronite Christians, or to aid Israel in its fight against the PLO. At least that would be understandable, from an American interests perspective. The U.S. Marines were sent in to prevent Israel from finishing its war against Arafat and the PLO, who were harming not only Israel (lobbing rockets into the country), but also the Lebanese (mass murdering scores of Lebanese civilians), and Americans (American diplomats were killed by the PLO in Khartoum).

Lebanon is George Shultz’s primary legacy. The very State Department page on George Shultz literally goes into detail about Lebanon, more than anything else, as the legacy that he is known for.

George Shultz’s thinking is part of what is wrong with this country.

It is more critical than ever before to reject this “compassionate conservatism,” which Shultz represents so well, and to move towards a new policy which combines concern for human rights with a concern for what is in the best interests of America.