What do you think?
Rate this book
The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan, the Cold War, and the World on the Brink
"An in-depth and masterful account of how Ronald Reagan's foreign policy "team of rivals" ended the Cold War and laid the foundation for the twenty-first century. Today, the ending of the Cold War seems a foregone conclusion. But in the early 1980s, U.S. intelligence predicted the Soviet Union would last another century. Ronald Reagan entered the White House with no certainty of what would happen next, only an overriding faith in American democracy and an abiding belief that the communist system--and the threat of nuclear war--must be brought to an end. The Peacemaker is the story of the eight years of Reagan's presidency, as he and his foreign policy team managed, in real time, multiple crises around the globe. From the emergence of global terrorism, wars in the Middle East, the rise of Japan and the awakening of China, to proxy conflicts in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, Reagan's team oversaw the worldwide expansion of democracy, globalization, free trade, and the information revolution. Yet no issue was greater than the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union. As president, Reagan cast aside the four-decades-old policy of containment and challenged the Soviets in an arms race that pushed them towards economic and political collapse, all while extending an olive branch of diplomacy. Reagan's revolving team included Secretaries of State Al Haig and George Schultz; Secretaries of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Frank Carlucci; National Security Advisors Bill Clark, John Poindexter and Bud McFarlane; Chief of Staff James Baker; CIA Director Bill Casey; and Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan's United Nations ambassador who fell out with the president over the Falkland War. Talented and devoted to their cause, at times their inner rivalries and backstabbing led to missteps and crises. But over the course of the administration, the Reagan team developed the strategies that brought us to the brink of the Cold War's peaceful conclusion, and remade the world"--
622 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 15, 2022
167 people are currently reading
2480 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
December 5, 2022
Who ended Soviet Communism and brought down the Iron Curtain?
My answer has been that Mikhail Gorbachev ended Communism (although that was not his intention at first) and that millions of brave East Europeans peacefully revolted against their governments, all Soviet client states, starting in mid- to late 1980s.
In 'The Peacemaker' historian William Inboden says Ronald Reagan ended Soviet Communism and brought about the collapse of the Soviet state itself through his 'peace through strength' diplomacy and by "luring" the Soviet Union into an arms race it couldn't win.
This book, whose author I interviewed for my podcast 'History As It Happens,' has several strengths. It is very well written as narrative history, and Inboden performed prodigious research of U.S. national security and presidential records, now declassified more than 30 years after Reagan left office. He covers every major foreign policy development during Reagan's presidency but the narrative never drags. If anything, it may move along a little too briskly at times. But it is a comprehensive account, mostly from the American point of view, of major events across every continent.
Where Inboden misses, in my view, is in his embrace of what I call "Reagan mythology." He offers no convincing evidence (because there is none) that the Politburo chose Gorbachev because the Soviet gerontocracy felt pressured by Reagan's "peace through strength" strategy to pick a reformer. On the contrary, had the Politburo realized just what Gorbachev had in store (and not everything was even clear to Gorbachev himself in 1985) they would not have picked him. Also, as scholar Archie Brown has convincingly argued, there was no significant change in Soviet defense or diplomatic policy during Reagan's first-term arms buildup. It was Gorbachev, not Reagan, who was the key actor after 1985. The USSR did not go bankrupt from excessive defense spending. As Brown and Ian Kershaw (among others) have shown, the Soviet state was not in an existential crisis in 1985. It could have persevered by further tightening the screws of repression and compromising living standards. Gorbachev chose a different path. It was because the USSR gave up the arms race, gave political freedom to its people, and chose not to send the tanks into East Europe, that brought it down.
Inboden doesn't ignore the "bitter fruits" of the Reagan Doctrine, although he ultimately sides with the USA because it was better, for instance, for Central American states to not fall under Soviet influence. That may be why he refers to the butchers of the right-wing contras as "freedom fighters." This term is also used to describe the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Inboden also gives Reagan a pass for his SDI fantasy.
I agree with Inboden that Reagan was the second-most consequential president of the 20th century after FDR. Reagan does deserve credit for deescalating the Cold War, for not listening to the critics who thought he was being duped by Gorbachev. Reagan was a pragmatist, not a utopian. But he was also a visionary who wanted to abolish nuclear weapons. He and Gorbachev came close, and it would behoove us to note how nuclear proliferation has returned as a serious obstacle to peace in the last couple decades. But Reagan did not end Communism (Gorbachev did) and his administration's support for right-wing insurrectionists in the Third World is a shameful part of his legacy.
My answer has been that Mikhail Gorbachev ended Communism (although that was not his intention at first) and that millions of brave East Europeans peacefully revolted against their governments, all Soviet client states, starting in mid- to late 1980s.
In 'The Peacemaker' historian William Inboden says Ronald Reagan ended Soviet Communism and brought about the collapse of the Soviet state itself through his 'peace through strength' diplomacy and by "luring" the Soviet Union into an arms race it couldn't win.
This book, whose author I interviewed for my podcast 'History As It Happens,' has several strengths. It is very well written as narrative history, and Inboden performed prodigious research of U.S. national security and presidential records, now declassified more than 30 years after Reagan left office. He covers every major foreign policy development during Reagan's presidency but the narrative never drags. If anything, it may move along a little too briskly at times. But it is a comprehensive account, mostly from the American point of view, of major events across every continent.
Where Inboden misses, in my view, is in his embrace of what I call "Reagan mythology." He offers no convincing evidence (because there is none) that the Politburo chose Gorbachev because the Soviet gerontocracy felt pressured by Reagan's "peace through strength" strategy to pick a reformer. On the contrary, had the Politburo realized just what Gorbachev had in store (and not everything was even clear to Gorbachev himself in 1985) they would not have picked him. Also, as scholar Archie Brown has convincingly argued, there was no significant change in Soviet defense or diplomatic policy during Reagan's first-term arms buildup. It was Gorbachev, not Reagan, who was the key actor after 1985. The USSR did not go bankrupt from excessive defense spending. As Brown and Ian Kershaw (among others) have shown, the Soviet state was not in an existential crisis in 1985. It could have persevered by further tightening the screws of repression and compromising living standards. Gorbachev chose a different path. It was because the USSR gave up the arms race, gave political freedom to its people, and chose not to send the tanks into East Europe, that brought it down.
Inboden doesn't ignore the "bitter fruits" of the Reagan Doctrine, although he ultimately sides with the USA because it was better, for instance, for Central American states to not fall under Soviet influence. That may be why he refers to the butchers of the right-wing contras as "freedom fighters." This term is also used to describe the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Inboden also gives Reagan a pass for his SDI fantasy.
I agree with Inboden that Reagan was the second-most consequential president of the 20th century after FDR. Reagan does deserve credit for deescalating the Cold War, for not listening to the critics who thought he was being duped by Gorbachev. Reagan was a pragmatist, not a utopian. But he was also a visionary who wanted to abolish nuclear weapons. He and Gorbachev came close, and it would behoove us to note how nuclear proliferation has returned as a serious obstacle to peace in the last couple decades. But Reagan did not end Communism (Gorbachev did) and his administration's support for right-wing insurrectionists in the Third World is a shameful part of his legacy.
August 9, 2022
A fantastic history of Regan's undeterrable resolve to win the Cold War with a deeply detailed examination of how he did it. Mr. Inboden enriches his history with a treasure trove of primary source documents, original interviews, and a wide array of insights and perspectives. He is a historian who understands his subject unlike so many of the President's contemporaries. Regan was not a warmonger or instigator or a simpleton breeding apocalypse. He was, in fact, a peacemaker believing the only way to achieve peace was for the U.S. to win through negotiation and strength. This book should stand the test of time as the definitive account of President Regan's cold war strategy, and cold war victory.
November 10, 2024
This book is useful as an example of naive propaganda. Cults of personality are dangerous, no matter who the object is.
It seems like the author set out to cherry-pick some nice stories to credit Reagan with what he absolutely did not do, which was end the Cold War and the many other hot and cold conflicts around the world. This is a US-centric and overly simplified reading of the geopolitical realities that were decades in the making. The Soviet Union began declining the minute WWII ended in 1945 (back when Reagan was a professional liar in the form of an actor, not a politician) and there was no longer an ideological or economic foundation for survival long-term. Anyone with even a high-school understanding of economics could see that the USSR wasn't making enough to sustain itself; the author chooses to ascribe it to Reagan's "intuition" that he saw the frailty of the Communist system (which the author sees as a monolith of "the Soviet people" who were "devout, open to the United States, and distrustful of their leaders" and said leaders, who were "parasites"). So he glosses over the president's alarmist rhetoric used to increase funding of the military-industrial complex, and his utterly stupid "Star Wars" program (he seems to think Time magazine was mean for calling out the failure).
The border crisis we are currently dealing with now in 2023? That is a direct result of Reagan's policies in central America. Tell me, how is that making peace?
The author is quick to call other governments "corrupt," including Chile, Iran, the Philippines, and the USSR, but doesn't cover how Reagan's own administration was also corrupt--138 indictments and convictions. This group of thieves supported dictators, human rights abuses, and apartheid, not to mention the destruction of upward mobility and the social contract in the United States. So many problems we have now were initiated or exacerbated by Reagan; it is baffling to me that anyone voted for him then or that any rube now thinks he was even adequate as a President, let alone great. But those people might like this book, although it might be a little long and repetitive even for Reagan fans.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for letting me have a chance to review this book. Opinions are my own.
It seems like the author set out to cherry-pick some nice stories to credit Reagan with what he absolutely did not do, which was end the Cold War and the many other hot and cold conflicts around the world. This is a US-centric and overly simplified reading of the geopolitical realities that were decades in the making. The Soviet Union began declining the minute WWII ended in 1945 (back when Reagan was a professional liar in the form of an actor, not a politician) and there was no longer an ideological or economic foundation for survival long-term. Anyone with even a high-school understanding of economics could see that the USSR wasn't making enough to sustain itself; the author chooses to ascribe it to Reagan's "intuition" that he saw the frailty of the Communist system (which the author sees as a monolith of "the Soviet people" who were "devout, open to the United States, and distrustful of their leaders" and said leaders, who were "parasites"). So he glosses over the president's alarmist rhetoric used to increase funding of the military-industrial complex, and his utterly stupid "Star Wars" program (he seems to think Time magazine was mean for calling out the failure).
The border crisis we are currently dealing with now in 2023? That is a direct result of Reagan's policies in central America. Tell me, how is that making peace?
The author is quick to call other governments "corrupt," including Chile, Iran, the Philippines, and the USSR, but doesn't cover how Reagan's own administration was also corrupt--138 indictments and convictions. This group of thieves supported dictators, human rights abuses, and apartheid, not to mention the destruction of upward mobility and the social contract in the United States. So many problems we have now were initiated or exacerbated by Reagan; it is baffling to me that anyone voted for him then or that any rube now thinks he was even adequate as a President, let alone great. But those people might like this book, although it might be a little long and repetitive even for Reagan fans.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for letting me have a chance to review this book. Opinions are my own.
October 19, 2022
Much familiar and many new insights.
Ronald Reagan was seen by much of American media and academia as a deranged warmonger. He actually perceived USSR’s frailty and developed strategy to exploit its weaknesses. Détente in the 70s was advantageous to the Kremlin, not to the free world. Reagan believed communism was destined to fail.
Ronald Reagan was seen by much of American media and academia as a deranged warmonger. He actually perceived USSR’s frailty and developed strategy to exploit its weaknesses. Détente in the 70s was advantageous to the Kremlin, not to the free world. Reagan believed communism was destined to fail.
Eisenhower was his first foreign policy mentor. Nixon became a valued advisor and sounding board, until his public effort to scuttle what became one of Reagan’s landmark accomplishments.
Despite his strategic vision was a dreadful manager. Conflict-adverse, he refused to enforce discipline with his fractious team. Unbelievable egos. Squabbling and bickering.
Reagan led in vanquishing a totalitarian empire; left his nation stronger, more secure, more hopeful and united; strengthened American’s national security; restored country’s faith in itself and world’s belief in America as a strong and good nation.
Parallels to today as American leaders destroy our country and make it a joke.
January 31, 2023
This is a rigorously researched and masterfully-written historical narrative of Reagan’s foreign and national security policy. Inboden’s skillful story-telling is complemented by incisive analysis of Reagan, his administration and the unrelenting policy challenges facing the United States at the climax of the Cold War.
Overall, the author offers a favorable (and well-justified) net assessment of Reagan’s presidency in terms of foreign policy and national security. Concurrently, however, Inboden unflinchingly and judiciously recounts the administration’s (and Reagan’s personal) shortcomings, hypocrisies and dysfunctions - many of which prompted disastrous and fatal consequences across the globe.
This book is worth the read for an informed audience, but not for the faint of heart given the book is nearly 500 pages. Yes, this endorsement is for Reagan critics (they are legion), too, given that the book proves adept in connecting American foreign policy in the 80s to the decades preceding and following it. After all, at least in the author’s estimation, Reagan was one of the most “consequential” presidents in the 20th century.
Overall, the author offers a favorable (and well-justified) net assessment of Reagan’s presidency in terms of foreign policy and national security. Concurrently, however, Inboden unflinchingly and judiciously recounts the administration’s (and Reagan’s personal) shortcomings, hypocrisies and dysfunctions - many of which prompted disastrous and fatal consequences across the globe.
This book is worth the read for an informed audience, but not for the faint of heart given the book is nearly 500 pages. Yes, this endorsement is for Reagan critics (they are legion), too, given that the book proves adept in connecting American foreign policy in the 80s to the decades preceding and following it. After all, at least in the author’s estimation, Reagan was one of the most “consequential” presidents in the 20th century.
October 21, 2025
Ronald Reagan truly was the last lion of the 20th century.
August 25, 2023
Excellent book about the Reagan presidency. I have always loved Ronald Reagan and consider him one of the best presidents we have ever had, certainly in my lifetime. This book did not change my opinion. Reagan certainly had his flaws. The Iran-Contra scandal was discussed in some detail. But his leadership, his communication skills, and his vision for America far outshine any of his faults. The main focus of the book was Reagan's dealings with the various leaders of the USSR and his commitment to ridding or reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world. Aside from dealing with the Soviet Union, Reagan also had to deal with numerous other hot spots at the time, such as communist intrusion into Central America, terrorist threats in the Middle East, as well as many domestic issues, such as the economy. While Reagan did have his faults, he did an amazing job of dealing with the Soviet Union, ending the cold war, and bringing the U.S. out of the doldrums of the Carter years by getting a handle on inflation and reviving a slumping economy. I loved Ronnie before reading this book, and I still love him now :-).
September 24, 2024
A refreshingly balanced narrative analysis of the Reagan administration's foreign policy, particularly in regard to the Soviet Union, between 1981-1989. The president does not emerge as 'St Reagan', icon of pre-Trump conservatives, nor is he portrayed as addled, elderly, or fascistic. In this way, caricatures of both Right and Left are set aside in favor of a view that recognizes Reagan's strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures.
June 15, 2023
A great and non biased look at President Reagan's foreign policy, and how it shaped the 1980s and onward. Great for history readers, and for those who want to read about the 1980s.
January 11, 2026
This book is a Ronald Reagan biography that is focused entirely on his foreign policy while president. Meticulously researched and footnoted, The Peacemaker explains the key drivers of Reagan's philosophy, which include hatred for communism and nuclear weapons and evangelical Christianity. Inboden relates how Reagan remained resolutely committed to these principles in an effort to achieve peace through strength. While Reagan was viewed by contemporaries as bellicose because he engineered a large military buildup, Inboden explains that the goal of this buildup was to force the Soviet Union to back off its own arms buildup due to the cost with an ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons completely. Somewhat hilariously, the "star wars" missile defense system, Strategic Defense Initiative, was a key to Reagan's success. Reagan believed SDI would work and that once it did, there would be no need to maintain deterrent nuclear weapons. The Soviets were terrified that it would work and eliminate the value of their deterrent. They negotiated arms reductions because they couldn't keep up technologically with America. In fact, SDI never got close to operational and even 40 years later, ballistic missile defenses are minimal and could not prevent a massive nuclear strike.
While the book is adulatory of Reagan, it's not hagiographic. Inboden notes that Reagan did not control his staff well, failing to get involved in the many disputes among his cabinet members. The Iran-Contra scandal stands out in a "what were they thinking?" way, as arms were sold to Iran in exchange for hostages in violation of the law while Iran kept the arms and the hostages! Inboden also addresses the choice Reagan was forced to make in supporting often despicable authoritarian regimes because they were anti-communist.
On the whole, the Peacemaker is a revelatory work on the complicated nature of foreign policy, and reveals that Reagan had a well-conceived strategy behind his policy at all times that ultimately succeeded, probably because of a combination of skill and luck.
While the book is adulatory of Reagan, it's not hagiographic. Inboden notes that Reagan did not control his staff well, failing to get involved in the many disputes among his cabinet members. The Iran-Contra scandal stands out in a "what were they thinking?" way, as arms were sold to Iran in exchange for hostages in violation of the law while Iran kept the arms and the hostages! Inboden also addresses the choice Reagan was forced to make in supporting often despicable authoritarian regimes because they were anti-communist.
On the whole, the Peacemaker is a revelatory work on the complicated nature of foreign policy, and reveals that Reagan had a well-conceived strategy behind his policy at all times that ultimately succeeded, probably because of a combination of skill and luck.
March 3, 2024
William Inboden’s “The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan in the White House and the World” is a captivating and insightful look at the foreign policy of one of America’s most iconic presidents. Inboden delves into Reagan’s approach to diplomacy, his leadership style, and the impact of his decisions on the global stage. One of the most compelling aspects of this book is Inboden’s exploration of Reagan’s belief in peace through strength. Reagan’s policies of military buildup and tough rhetoric towards the Soviet Union are well-known, but Inboden goes beyond the surface to examine the strategic thinking behind these actions. He argues that Reagan’s willingness to engage in tough negotiations and his commitment to defending American interests ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. Inboden also sheds light on Reagan’s personal relationships with world leaders, from Margaret Thatcher to Mikhail Gorbachev. These relationships were crucial in shaping Reagan’s foreign policy and his ability to navigate complex geopolitical challenges. Inboden provides fascinating insights into the dynamics of these relationships and how they influenced Reagan’s decision-making. “The Peacemaker” is a well-researched and balanced account of Reagan’s presidency, offering a nuanced perspective on his successes and failures in foreign policy. Inboden does not shy away from addressing controversies such as the Iran-Contra affair, but he also highlights Reagan’s achievements in promoting democracy and human rights around the world. What sets this book apart from other biographies of Reagan is Inboden’s focus on the moral dimensions of his leadership. Reagan’s strong belief in American exceptionalism and his commitment to fighting for freedom and democracy are central themes throughout the book. Inboden argues that Reagan’s moral clarity and unwavering principles were key factors in shaping his foreign policy and influencing the course of history. Overall, “The Peacemaker” is a compelling and thought-provoking read that offers a fresh perspective on Reagan’s presidency and his impact on the world. Inboden’s engaging writing style and thorough research make this book a must-read for anyone interested in American history, diplomacy, or leadership. Whether you are a Reagan enthusiast or a skeptic, “The Peacemaker” will challenge your assumptions and deepen your understanding of one of America’s most influential presidents.
February 21, 2025
William Inboden’s The Peacemaker joins a long list of great books about Ronald Reagan’s foreign and defense policies. It is arguably the best of the bunch. Inboden, a respected scholar who also served in the Bush 43 administration, is not biased or hagiographic when talking about the Reagan presidency. Lebanon, Iran-Contra, and the administration’s in-house disagreements all come under criticism from Inboden. But the author does a remarkable job at looking at Reagan’s policies towards the Soviet Union, Europe, North and Latin America, Africa, and most interestingly in Asia. Inboden’s insights into the US-Japan relationship and Reagan’s close bond with PM Yasuhiro Nakasone are worth the price of the book alone. If readers want to understand why Ronald Reagan and his administration were so consequential in the realm of foreign affairs and defense, they must read this book. Rating: 4.5/5.
June 22, 2023
I’d give it six stars if I could. Phenomenal. Not just the best history book I’ve read this year, but the best book period. Well written, impeccable research, brisk but with enough detail. If you’re interested in the Cold War (and leadership!), read this book.
September 19, 2023
Thank you Penguin Random House Audio for the free audiobook. With Robert Petkoff confident on the mic, William Inboden presents the most sympathetic possible view of U.S. foreign policy in the ‘80s. The narrative is as fixated on the U.S.S.R. as Reagan was, and there’s a certain authenticity to that.
March 24, 2023
It took me a while to get through this 24hr audiobook, but I learned a lot about U.S. foreign policy under Reagan.
December 19, 2022
A very timely book. Great background reading for what is now happening in the world.
January 2, 2023
I have read several books on Ronald Reagan, however, this was the first one that focused exclusively on his foreign policy.
The book is filled with interesting insights and analysis. Here are a few that stand out to me.
1. Reagan not only had a firm conviction that the US capitalist system was superior to the Soviet's communist system, but that - if pressed - the Soviet system was destined to implode.
2. Reagan often ignored the advice of "experts" - specifically the CIA - when it came to the analysis of the strength of the Soviet economy. Reagan was much more bearish on the Soviet economy compared to the projections he was given. Reagan's instincts in this regard gave him the fortitude to push ahead with an aggressive military build-up and the patience wait to negotiate from a position of strength in spite of intense criticism at home an abroad.
3. Reagan's policy of "Peace through Strength" was a radical departure from the previous US policy of Detente. Detente allowed the Soviets to maintain military superiority with the United States; Reagan's policy was to entirely shift the balance.
4. While Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (or, SDI) has been criticized in the US over the years, it was that idea that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and played a large part in bringing the Cold War to an end. SDI was just an idea at the start, but the idea was enough to shake the Soviets. The idea was also brilliant in that Reagan created an asset out of thin air that changed the dynamics of the Cold War. To show that the US had no offensive intent with SDI, Reagan offered to GIVE the technology to the Soviets once it was developed.
5. Reagan saw the world through lens of communism vs. freedom. Sometimes that left Reagan with a choice between bad and worse - when Reagan found himself supporting anti-communist dictators who were sometimes as brutal as the Soviets-and other times Reagan found himself looking through a lens that didn't provide for a clear vision - as was the case with Reagan's relationship with Israel and policy towards the middle east.
I could go on, but overall, I found the book fascinating. Inboden's book was generally friendly towards Reagan's policy approach, while acknowledging Reagan's shortcomings. I highly recommend it for those interested in learning about Reagan's approach to the Cold War.
The book is filled with interesting insights and analysis. Here are a few that stand out to me.
1. Reagan not only had a firm conviction that the US capitalist system was superior to the Soviet's communist system, but that - if pressed - the Soviet system was destined to implode.
2. Reagan often ignored the advice of "experts" - specifically the CIA - when it came to the analysis of the strength of the Soviet economy. Reagan was much more bearish on the Soviet economy compared to the projections he was given. Reagan's instincts in this regard gave him the fortitude to push ahead with an aggressive military build-up and the patience wait to negotiate from a position of strength in spite of intense criticism at home an abroad.
3. Reagan's policy of "Peace through Strength" was a radical departure from the previous US policy of Detente. Detente allowed the Soviets to maintain military superiority with the United States; Reagan's policy was to entirely shift the balance.
4. While Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (or, SDI) has been criticized in the US over the years, it was that idea that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and played a large part in bringing the Cold War to an end. SDI was just an idea at the start, but the idea was enough to shake the Soviets. The idea was also brilliant in that Reagan created an asset out of thin air that changed the dynamics of the Cold War. To show that the US had no offensive intent with SDI, Reagan offered to GIVE the technology to the Soviets once it was developed.
5. Reagan saw the world through lens of communism vs. freedom. Sometimes that left Reagan with a choice between bad and worse - when Reagan found himself supporting anti-communist dictators who were sometimes as brutal as the Soviets-and other times Reagan found himself looking through a lens that didn't provide for a clear vision - as was the case with Reagan's relationship with Israel and policy towards the middle east.
I could go on, but overall, I found the book fascinating. Inboden's book was generally friendly towards Reagan's policy approach, while acknowledging Reagan's shortcomings. I highly recommend it for those interested in learning about Reagan's approach to the Cold War.
November 29, 2022
Reagan's grand strategy. Not since Jay Solomon's "Iran Wars" have I read such a good book. It's great!
March 9, 2023
A good and somewhat revisionist account of RR's foreign policy. WI contends that academics have significantly overlooked RR's foreign policy acumen and accomplishments, and I think he's got a lot of good points (although there are plenty of defenders of RR's FP, such as Service, Brands, and Gaddis). This is a thorough book that goes into every major aspect of RR's foreign policy with a focus on the Cold War. At times, the skipping around from topic to topic feels de-stabilizing to the reader, but it's also a good simulation of what it's like to be the PResident.
WI's strongest argument is that RR was way out in front of the national security establishment, and most of his advisors, with the idea of actually winning the Cold War via the USSR's "negotiated surrender." RR was not a deep thinker, IMO, but he was capable of grasping the essential aspects of things and forming big ideas that occasionally hit the motherlode. RR believed that the USSR was an abomination, a doomed and corrupt regime that was a parasite on the RUssian people, promulgating an ideology that no one believed in any more and ruling over an empire that few wanted to be a part of. He believed that moral, economic, and some military pressure on the regime might shift its internal dynamics toward a more cooperative, less doctrinaire leadership. He sincerely believed in the abolition of nuclear weapons and the immorality of MAD and nuclear deterrence. He increased defense spending and invested in technologies like SDI in order to pressure the regime, and he created effective partnerships with E Bloc opposition figures as well as the Pope. Obviously the Soviet collapse was mainly a result of internal problems, but Reagan's strategy was ahead of its time in pushing the Soviets to realize they couldn't compete with the US but then offering them off-ramps to a better relationship.
WI also shows how RR rebuilt US power through his moral rhetoric, use of religion, opening of greater trade relationships, and close alliances with European partners. He makes a good case that RR deftly pushed autocratic allies like Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, and others toward democracy without jeopardizing US strategic goals.
Where I disagree with this book is in WI's implicit defense of the Reagan Doctrine. This doctrine sought to combat the expansion of Soviet or communist influence in the developing world through aid to right-wing governments and insurgents like the Contras or Savimbi rather than putting US troops on the ground a la Vietnam. In theory, there's nothing wrong with it, especially when there were genuine Communist insurgencies in these countries. However, I think RR got into bed with extremely immoral groups that committed horrible crimes (as well as some nasty regimes) that were not outweighed by the strategic importance of those states. I mean, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan and other states are not going to shift the global balance of power, and they had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR in my opinion (AF maybe, but it wasn't a major reason for Soviet collapse). I think RR remained mired in the Cold War mindset (or what JOhn Gaddis calls symmetrical containment) in which the US had to stop every little Communist advance no matter how small and insignificant the opposing country was. I don't really think the Reagan Doctrine was necessary or significant for winning the Cold War, so I don't agree with WI's defense of it even though he does a great job explaining to it.
WI clearly likes RR, and there's nothing wrong with that. Historians are capable of writing great work about people they like or people they hate. I like some of Reagan and dislike other parts, but no matter what I always find him interesting. I don't think any figure channeled an optimistic vision of the country and it's past and future as effectively as Reagan, and I often find myself moved by his speeches about liberty, communism, and the Cold War. At the same time, he really believed the core mythologies of US history in totally uncritical ways, and I think he was close to incapable of seeing the US as being the bad guys at times. I think this dynamic is part of why liberals and conservatives found him to be such a lightning rod, reflecting their own embrace of or detraction of these myths. Still, Inboden does a great job overall in this book, and I definitely recommend it to foreign policy and Cold War heads.
WI's strongest argument is that RR was way out in front of the national security establishment, and most of his advisors, with the idea of actually winning the Cold War via the USSR's "negotiated surrender." RR was not a deep thinker, IMO, but he was capable of grasping the essential aspects of things and forming big ideas that occasionally hit the motherlode. RR believed that the USSR was an abomination, a doomed and corrupt regime that was a parasite on the RUssian people, promulgating an ideology that no one believed in any more and ruling over an empire that few wanted to be a part of. He believed that moral, economic, and some military pressure on the regime might shift its internal dynamics toward a more cooperative, less doctrinaire leadership. He sincerely believed in the abolition of nuclear weapons and the immorality of MAD and nuclear deterrence. He increased defense spending and invested in technologies like SDI in order to pressure the regime, and he created effective partnerships with E Bloc opposition figures as well as the Pope. Obviously the Soviet collapse was mainly a result of internal problems, but Reagan's strategy was ahead of its time in pushing the Soviets to realize they couldn't compete with the US but then offering them off-ramps to a better relationship.
WI also shows how RR rebuilt US power through his moral rhetoric, use of religion, opening of greater trade relationships, and close alliances with European partners. He makes a good case that RR deftly pushed autocratic allies like Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, and others toward democracy without jeopardizing US strategic goals.
Where I disagree with this book is in WI's implicit defense of the Reagan Doctrine. This doctrine sought to combat the expansion of Soviet or communist influence in the developing world through aid to right-wing governments and insurgents like the Contras or Savimbi rather than putting US troops on the ground a la Vietnam. In theory, there's nothing wrong with it, especially when there were genuine Communist insurgencies in these countries. However, I think RR got into bed with extremely immoral groups that committed horrible crimes (as well as some nasty regimes) that were not outweighed by the strategic importance of those states. I mean, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan and other states are not going to shift the global balance of power, and they had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR in my opinion (AF maybe, but it wasn't a major reason for Soviet collapse). I think RR remained mired in the Cold War mindset (or what JOhn Gaddis calls symmetrical containment) in which the US had to stop every little Communist advance no matter how small and insignificant the opposing country was. I don't really think the Reagan Doctrine was necessary or significant for winning the Cold War, so I don't agree with WI's defense of it even though he does a great job explaining to it.
WI clearly likes RR, and there's nothing wrong with that. Historians are capable of writing great work about people they like or people they hate. I like some of Reagan and dislike other parts, but no matter what I always find him interesting. I don't think any figure channeled an optimistic vision of the country and it's past and future as effectively as Reagan, and I often find myself moved by his speeches about liberty, communism, and the Cold War. At the same time, he really believed the core mythologies of US history in totally uncritical ways, and I think he was close to incapable of seeing the US as being the bad guys at times. I think this dynamic is part of why liberals and conservatives found him to be such a lightning rod, reflecting their own embrace of or detraction of these myths. Still, Inboden does a great job overall in this book, and I definitely recommend it to foreign policy and Cold War heads.
August 5, 2024
William Inboden's "The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan in the White House and the World" offers a compelling and meticulously researched account of Ronald Reagan's presidency, focusing on his foreign policy and its global impact. Inboden, a distinguished historian and former policymaker, delves deep into the intricacies of Reagan's strategies and decisions, shedding light on the complexities of the Cold War era.
Overview
Inboden's narrative is not just a biography of Reagan but an extensive analysis of the international landscape during the 1980s. The book is divided into thematic sections, each exploring different facets of Reagan's foreign policy, from his hardline stance against the Soviet Union to his diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle East and Asia.
Strengths
Comprehensive Research: Inboden has thoroughly examined a wealth of primary sources, including recently declassified documents, personal diaries, and interviews with key figures from the Reagan administration. This extensive research lends credibility and depth to his analysis.
Balanced Perspective: Inboden strives for objectivity, acknowledging both the successes and shortcomings of Reagan's policies. He presents a nuanced view that goes beyond the typical hero-worship or vilification that often accompanies discussions of Reagan.
Engaging Narrative: Despite its scholarly rigor, "The Peacemaker" is highly readable. Inboden's writing is clear and engaging, making complex geopolitical issues accessible to a broad audience.
Insightful Analysis: The book offers fresh insights into Reagan's character and decision-making processes. Inboden highlights how Reagan's ideology, personal beliefs, and background influenced his approach to foreign policy.
Weaknesses
Dense Material: At times, the level of detail can be overwhelming, particularly for readers not well-versed in Cold War history. The sheer volume of information might deter some casual readers.
Focus on Foreign Policy: While the book excels in its analysis of Reagan's international dealings, it gives less attention to his domestic policies. Readers looking for a more comprehensive biography might find this focus somewhat limiting.
Conclusion
"The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan in the White House and the World" is a significant contribution to the literature on Ronald Reagan and Cold War history. William Inboden's balanced and detailed account provides a thorough understanding of Reagan's foreign policy and its lasting impact on the world stage. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in American history, international relations, and the complexities of leadership during one of the most tense periods of the 20th century.
Overview
Inboden's narrative is not just a biography of Reagan but an extensive analysis of the international landscape during the 1980s. The book is divided into thematic sections, each exploring different facets of Reagan's foreign policy, from his hardline stance against the Soviet Union to his diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle East and Asia.
Strengths
Comprehensive Research: Inboden has thoroughly examined a wealth of primary sources, including recently declassified documents, personal diaries, and interviews with key figures from the Reagan administration. This extensive research lends credibility and depth to his analysis.
Balanced Perspective: Inboden strives for objectivity, acknowledging both the successes and shortcomings of Reagan's policies. He presents a nuanced view that goes beyond the typical hero-worship or vilification that often accompanies discussions of Reagan.
Engaging Narrative: Despite its scholarly rigor, "The Peacemaker" is highly readable. Inboden's writing is clear and engaging, making complex geopolitical issues accessible to a broad audience.
Insightful Analysis: The book offers fresh insights into Reagan's character and decision-making processes. Inboden highlights how Reagan's ideology, personal beliefs, and background influenced his approach to foreign policy.
Weaknesses
Dense Material: At times, the level of detail can be overwhelming, particularly for readers not well-versed in Cold War history. The sheer volume of information might deter some casual readers.
Focus on Foreign Policy: While the book excels in its analysis of Reagan's international dealings, it gives less attention to his domestic policies. Readers looking for a more comprehensive biography might find this focus somewhat limiting.
Conclusion
"The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan in the White House and the World" is a significant contribution to the literature on Ronald Reagan and Cold War history. William Inboden's balanced and detailed account provides a thorough understanding of Reagan's foreign policy and its lasting impact on the world stage. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in American history, international relations, and the complexities of leadership during one of the most tense periods of the 20th century.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2024
The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan in the White House and the World by William Inboden is an illuminating narrative account of Reagan's foreign policy, with a particular focus on his agenda vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. In that regard, The Peacemaker stands in stark contrast to a revisionist account that became popular in the 90s and 00s which claimed Gorbachev required equal, if not far greater, credit for bringing about the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Here, Inboden argues that it was Reagan's diplomacy and his effort to force denuclearization and support SDI that created the necessary prerequisites for peace. Reagan comes across as good, though flawed, in this account. A great deal of effort is put to making him appear to be a man of faith with solid human rights credentials who stewarded in several democratic advances among US partners and helped kickstart the end of the Cold War. Iran Contra is damning, but its about as damning as this account gets.
If I had a criticism, it would be that the text is organized chronologically by chapter and then again by numbered section as events come. While this grants the reader greater empathy into the types of things Reagan was dealing with, at times it felt a bit unfocused. Life is often unfocused, but the power of a narrative is that it liberates the author to contextualize events in a way that is intuitively understandable and clear to come across. South Korea, Iran Contra, and several other through-lines could have been granted an individual focus, relating back to events rather than being stuck right in the middle. For me, the jaunts to other subjects obscured, rather than highlighted, the main focus of the text.
But then again, Will's book is doing remarkably well and has a small army of folks singing its praises. Maybe its just me?
If I had a criticism, it would be that the text is organized chronologically by chapter and then again by numbered section as events come. While this grants the reader greater empathy into the types of things Reagan was dealing with, at times it felt a bit unfocused. Life is often unfocused, but the power of a narrative is that it liberates the author to contextualize events in a way that is intuitively understandable and clear to come across. South Korea, Iran Contra, and several other through-lines could have been granted an individual focus, relating back to events rather than being stuck right in the middle. For me, the jaunts to other subjects obscured, rather than highlighted, the main focus of the text.
But then again, Will's book is doing remarkably well and has a small army of folks singing its praises. Maybe its just me?
December 4, 2024
Considering the chaotic foreign policy of the past two decades, the 1980s under Ronald Reagan seems relatively calm. It’s remarkable how restrained the Reagan Administration was - they deployed combat troops only once, focusing instead on working with allies to build a strong defense.
This book does a deep dive on Reagan’s implementation of his strategy of pressuring and negotiating with the USSR, aiming for what he called a "negotiated surrender." While I enjoyed the book, I found the broader story of the USSR’s trajectory, as explored in works like The Rise and Fall of Communism and Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000, to be even more interesting.
It’s worth noting that Reagan’s accuracy in recognizing communism’s weaknesses as an economic and governing system benefits from a degree of hindsight bias. Had he been wrong and the Cold War persisted, he would look like moron. Interestingly, the book recounts a 1985 CIA assessment claiming that the Soviet Union was stronger than ever and capable of competing with the United States both economically and militarily. Reagan and his team dismissed this assessment and continued pursuing their policy, confident in their approach.
This book does a deep dive on Reagan’s implementation of his strategy of pressuring and negotiating with the USSR, aiming for what he called a "negotiated surrender." While I enjoyed the book, I found the broader story of the USSR’s trajectory, as explored in works like The Rise and Fall of Communism and Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000, to be even more interesting.
It’s worth noting that Reagan’s accuracy in recognizing communism’s weaknesses as an economic and governing system benefits from a degree of hindsight bias. Had he been wrong and the Cold War persisted, he would look like moron. Interestingly, the book recounts a 1985 CIA assessment claiming that the Soviet Union was stronger than ever and capable of competing with the United States both economically and militarily. Reagan and his team dismissed this assessment and continued pursuing their policy, confident in their approach.
August 17, 2025
I will admit I have read this book twice. It is an important and well researched accounting of not only Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy decisions, but also of his personal and philosophical approach to geopolitics that shaped those decisions.
The central focus revolves around Reagan’s central belief in the fundamental evil in the Soviet system and his unshakeable resolve to see it crumble under its own weight, a resolve born from Reagan’s deep Christian sense of morality. It casts Reagan and his cabinet as prophet and disciples in a sea of Washington non-believers on Soviet weakness on a quest to covert American foreign policy to their ideals. A quest on which the succeed after 8 years in the White House, though only vindicated after he left office.
Where the book falls short is its treatment of President Reagan’s role in the Iran-Contra affair. The author reduces Reagan to a victim of his own good intentions in freeing American hostages in Lebanon and his aloofness leading to his staff engaging in illegal activity. While the historical record on these events are still clouded in mystery and Reagan’s own personal diary entries supporting the idea that he never intend for the actions that happened to occur, more skepticism and acknowledgement of error is needed.
Regardless the books is a strong read. Well written and compelling, it is a must for a conservative looking for understanding of Reagan’s time in office.
The central focus revolves around Reagan’s central belief in the fundamental evil in the Soviet system and his unshakeable resolve to see it crumble under its own weight, a resolve born from Reagan’s deep Christian sense of morality. It casts Reagan and his cabinet as prophet and disciples in a sea of Washington non-believers on Soviet weakness on a quest to covert American foreign policy to their ideals. A quest on which the succeed after 8 years in the White House, though only vindicated after he left office.
Where the book falls short is its treatment of President Reagan’s role in the Iran-Contra affair. The author reduces Reagan to a victim of his own good intentions in freeing American hostages in Lebanon and his aloofness leading to his staff engaging in illegal activity. While the historical record on these events are still clouded in mystery and Reagan’s own personal diary entries supporting the idea that he never intend for the actions that happened to occur, more skepticism and acknowledgement of error is needed.
Regardless the books is a strong read. Well written and compelling, it is a must for a conservative looking for understanding of Reagan’s time in office.
April 8, 2024
Ronald Reagan ha sido uno de los presidentes de EEUU de mayor trascendencia e impacto histórico. Esta reciente biografía, enfocada en su política exterior, nos permite conocer con detalle el papel que jugó para lograr el fin del imperio soviético y, con ello, una disminución de las tensiones globales y un significativamente menor riesgo de un holocausto nuclear.
La imagen que nos deja el libro es la de un verdadero estadista, consciente de su responsabilidad histórica, con principios sólidos y enraizado en una fe sincera y profunda, muy diferente a la mayoría de los políticos, carentes de visión y sin otro objetivo que el aferrarse al poder. El titulo del libro refleja muy bien lo que fue Reagan, no un militarista que necia e innecesariamente haya puesto en riesgo la destrucción del mundo por su enfrentamiento con la Union Soviética, sino un verdadero forjador de una paz estable y duradera. Pero no una paz ingenua, resultado de rendirse ante los adversarios moralmente quebrados, sino una paz lograda a través de la fuerza: no solo la fuerza económica, sino fundamentalmente, la fuerza de las convicciones.
Esto no significa que Reagan no haya cometido errores o que todas sus decisiones hayan sido intachables. El autor señala claramente, por ejemplo, el costo de haber apoyado regímenes antidemocráticos que en su momento fueron instrumentales para frenar los avances del comunismo, especialmente en Latinoamérica, pero con un reprochable historial de violaciones a los derechos humanos.
Lectura muy recomendable, no solo para entender la historia reciente del mundo, sino como una lección de liderazgo basado en valores, con una gran capacidad de comunicación y de conexión con la gente y, sobre todo, profundamente optimista.
La imagen que nos deja el libro es la de un verdadero estadista, consciente de su responsabilidad histórica, con principios sólidos y enraizado en una fe sincera y profunda, muy diferente a la mayoría de los políticos, carentes de visión y sin otro objetivo que el aferrarse al poder. El titulo del libro refleja muy bien lo que fue Reagan, no un militarista que necia e innecesariamente haya puesto en riesgo la destrucción del mundo por su enfrentamiento con la Union Soviética, sino un verdadero forjador de una paz estable y duradera. Pero no una paz ingenua, resultado de rendirse ante los adversarios moralmente quebrados, sino una paz lograda a través de la fuerza: no solo la fuerza económica, sino fundamentalmente, la fuerza de las convicciones.
Esto no significa que Reagan no haya cometido errores o que todas sus decisiones hayan sido intachables. El autor señala claramente, por ejemplo, el costo de haber apoyado regímenes antidemocráticos que en su momento fueron instrumentales para frenar los avances del comunismo, especialmente en Latinoamérica, pero con un reprochable historial de violaciones a los derechos humanos.
Lectura muy recomendable, no solo para entender la historia reciente del mundo, sino como una lección de liderazgo basado en valores, con una gran capacidad de comunicación y de conexión con la gente y, sobre todo, profundamente optimista.
January 14, 2023
I've read several books on Reagan - his life and presidency. This book doesn't add a lot to my knowledge (other than the infighting between his senior colleagues). But it spells out his strategy for winning the Cold War that Reagan brought to the White House. He was confident that he was correct and was not afraid to disagree with advisors' expert opinions. He organized his actions and responses to events based on this strategy. There is no doubt that he achieved a "negotiated surrender" by the Soviet Union. It's hard to say how results would have differed if another hard-liner was there instead of Gorbachev.
The book added great insights to the dilemma of supporting an autocratic ally vs a focus on human rights (e.g., Marcos and the Philippines, Pinochet & Chile). Reagan did push several dictators to turn power over to a democratically elected government. It also show the great difficulties he had in the Middle East because - it seems to me - he did not study the challenges of that part of the world in the same detail that he did the Soviet Union and the Cold War in the years before becoming president.
The title is absolutely correct - he was a peacemaker. Where is his Nobel Prize for ending the Cold War without a shot being fired?
The book added great insights to the dilemma of supporting an autocratic ally vs a focus on human rights (e.g., Marcos and the Philippines, Pinochet & Chile). Reagan did push several dictators to turn power over to a democratically elected government. It also show the great difficulties he had in the Middle East because - it seems to me - he did not study the challenges of that part of the world in the same detail that he did the Soviet Union and the Cold War in the years before becoming president.
The title is absolutely correct - he was a peacemaker. Where is his Nobel Prize for ending the Cold War without a shot being fired?
August 27, 2024
3.5
Given that I was born in 1987, the only things I really knew of Reagan were
1) he was a very old President at the time 😳
2) his famous “Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!”
3) he’d been an actor
4) and trickle down Reaganomics (that didn’t work).
Interestingly, I don’t think that last one was really addressed in this book - there were mentions of defense spending and tax cuts, etc, but I’m not sure the trickle down principle was really discussed. I could be wrong- I find biographies like this a little dry and I can mentally glaze over when reading sometimes, so I could have missed it.
Anyway, I can’t really say I minded. This book made it clear that while Reagan naturally had a number of goals when he took office, his primary one really was ending the Cold War. Everything else revolved around it, deferred to it. His policies were informed and guided by it, his morals challenged by it, sometimes the lines crossed by it. But in the end, he succeeded. Which really gave you the measure of the man, I think.
Something this book did really well was driving home the perspective of being present then vs looking at things from the other side of history. Nuclear war was a very real threat and no one then knew how things would turn out. That lens requires honesty and grace.
Given that I was born in 1987, the only things I really knew of Reagan were
1) he was a very old President at the time 😳
2) his famous “Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!”
3) he’d been an actor
4) and trickle down Reaganomics (that didn’t work).
Interestingly, I don’t think that last one was really addressed in this book - there were mentions of defense spending and tax cuts, etc, but I’m not sure the trickle down principle was really discussed. I could be wrong- I find biographies like this a little dry and I can mentally glaze over when reading sometimes, so I could have missed it.
Anyway, I can’t really say I minded. This book made it clear that while Reagan naturally had a number of goals when he took office, his primary one really was ending the Cold War. Everything else revolved around it, deferred to it. His policies were informed and guided by it, his morals challenged by it, sometimes the lines crossed by it. But in the end, he succeeded. Which really gave you the measure of the man, I think.
Something this book did really well was driving home the perspective of being present then vs looking at things from the other side of history. Nuclear war was a very real threat and no one then knew how things would turn out. That lens requires honesty and grace.
February 23, 2023
Although not a "definitive" biography that takes the reader on a ride from the parents of the subject to his or her death and beyond, this history tightly describes Reagan's brilliance as a strategist in plowing the ground and planting the seeds to ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Mr. Inboden's narrative describing the stakes of the Cold War, and the major policy decisions and the people responsible for implementing Mr. Reagan's vision, is perfect. He describes in a compelling fashion Mr. Reagan's efforts to totally change the typical (and ineffective) back and forth of diplomacy to a moral imperative to gain a "negotiated surrender" of the Soviet Union.
I especially appreciate Mr. Inboden's even-handedness, highlighting Mr. Reagan's flaws (extremely poor management skills) and flawed policies (inability to develop a coherent strategy for the Middle East), as well as his strategic insights (peace through strength and the vulnerability of a Soviet Union that many thought could go on forever).
I highly recommend this outstanding read.
Mr. Inboden's narrative describing the stakes of the Cold War, and the major policy decisions and the people responsible for implementing Mr. Reagan's vision, is perfect. He describes in a compelling fashion Mr. Reagan's efforts to totally change the typical (and ineffective) back and forth of diplomacy to a moral imperative to gain a "negotiated surrender" of the Soviet Union.
I especially appreciate Mr. Inboden's even-handedness, highlighting Mr. Reagan's flaws (extremely poor management skills) and flawed policies (inability to develop a coherent strategy for the Middle East), as well as his strategic insights (peace through strength and the vulnerability of a Soviet Union that many thought could go on forever).
I highly recommend this outstanding read.
January 26, 2025
I was excited to read this book, which is part biography and part historical narrative, as I was old enough during Reagan’s presidency that I had a cursory knowledge of events of the era (though it was by watching the Tom Cruise movie American Made that I really understood what made the Iran Contra affair watch a controversy). The Peacemaker did not disappoint.
Inboden does well at staying neutral, though bias towards, even admiration of, Reagan is apparent throughout. This book is thoroughly researched and his ability to weave together eight years in 480 pages, providing character development typical in fiction, along with crisp retelling of events, makes for a riveting read, even though we know how the story ends.
Four stars. There are times when irrelevant, or at least less important events are told in great detail, making for a longer read without any real value-add to the account. Nevertheless, a fantastic work and an exceptionally worthy read.
Inboden does well at staying neutral, though bias towards, even admiration of, Reagan is apparent throughout. This book is thoroughly researched and his ability to weave together eight years in 480 pages, providing character development typical in fiction, along with crisp retelling of events, makes for a riveting read, even though we know how the story ends.
Four stars. There are times when irrelevant, or at least less important events are told in great detail, making for a longer read without any real value-add to the account. Nevertheless, a fantastic work and an exceptionally worthy read.
July 18, 2025
I've always wondered why Ronald Reagan is so deified on the Right - and this book gave me great insight into the answer to that question. Inboden, a UT Austin scholar, uses extremely engaging and concise writing to chronicle the rise and presidency of the Republican icon, from his numerous tries for the Republican nomination to the successful close to his presidency and prosecution of the Cold War. Inboden's thesis argues that Reagan himself, not the internal workings of the Soviet Union or the economic unworkability of communism as a governance structure (or the work of Gorbachev in unleashing the cascade of reforms that broke the communist system), was responsible for the "negotiated surrender" of the Soviet Union and the transition into the unipolar moment. In doing so, he emphasizes Reagan's unique characteristics - his devout evangelicalism, his steadfast policy goals, his naive belief in a better world free of nuclear weapons - and how they applied to his policies, relations with foreign leaders (both friend and foe), and how he managed the intense internal conflicts within his Cabinet. Inboden fluctuates between praising Reagan's foreign policy genius as a true-blooded, hard-power American and a naive idealist, too much of a believer in America's ideals for his own good. This occasionally seems a bit exaggerated, as it absolves Reagan from responsibility for his foreign policy failures ("he was blinded by good intentions"), but that's a common characteristic of almost every presidential biography. Additionally, as this is a foreign policy-oriented biography, Reagan’s domestic legacy of income inequality, supply-side economics, and the war on drugs and reversing civil rights progress is absent and therefore does not stand in the way of Inboden’s glowing review of the Reagan presidency. However, Inboden’s thesis itself is credible and convincing: Reagan’s escalation of the Cold War on all fronts, from his (very selective) human rights rhetoric to his nuclear weapons negotiations, applied consistent and effective pressure on the Soviet Union and led to its engagement in a race that it would eventually (and inevitably) lose. This book is Reagan hagiography, plain and simple - but it’s a convincing argument for why so many see Reagan as a foreign policy saint.
December 18, 2022
Truly magnificent book, and an overdue evaluation of the tremendous victory over the Soviet Union that was solely due to Reagan's strategic vision. The author repeatedly emphasizes the "negotiated surrender" that Reagan consistently sought across his two terms. Reagan ultimately "...favored diplomacy over war and wanted to partner with a Soviet leader to negotiate arms reductions and reduced tensions, leading ultimately to eliminating nuclear weapons."
Inboden makes extensive use of Reagan's diaries to enlighten his narrative. The author is very fair about noting the weaknesses in Reagan's management style that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. Yet to the very end of his presidency, Reagan maintained a steadfast focus on achieving the Soviet's "negotiated surrender". This didn't finally occur until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a year after the end of his presidency, but it is difficult imagining any other politician of the era achieving the same goal.
Inboden makes extensive use of Reagan's diaries to enlighten his narrative. The author is very fair about noting the weaknesses in Reagan's management style that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. Yet to the very end of his presidency, Reagan maintained a steadfast focus on achieving the Soviet's "negotiated surrender". This didn't finally occur until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a year after the end of his presidency, but it is difficult imagining any other politician of the era achieving the same goal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews