[raybbr]

This is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.

I don't see the "mischaracterization". I have no love for Paul but that's Reagan's policy as I remember it.

[exDemMom]

Rand Paul got it wrong by leaving out a a crucial element of Reagan’s policy, which was having a strong military. That is what “peace through strength” means—the term does NOT refer to diplomacy.

As long as we have the military might to back up our words, we can be diplomatic. Without that might, diplomacy only serves to give time to the enemy to plan and prepare their attack.

[Nifster]

He conveniently leaves out all of Reagan’s interventions NONE of which Ron approved of and neither would have Rand. Rand is a libertarian through and through. Reagan was not