REAGAN'S DR. STRANGELOVE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000505080008-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 10, 2010
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: June 1, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/10: CIA-RDP90-00552R000505080008-7
r T T L APPEARED
0" PAGE /o
N G 1 E J L 0 V, _1; J1
THE 1;ASHI'N?GT0 I PR NTHLY
June 1981
by Jonathan Alter
Every so often a certain kind of person
involved in public affairs arouses within
those who disagree an emotional response
so strong, so angry, that you get a little curious
about what it is that causes all the snorts and
sighs when his name comes up.
One of those people in. Washington right now
is Richard Pipes, a Polish-born Harvard pro-
fessor of Russian history. Pipes became impor-
tant in 1976 when a team of hardline analysts he
headed totally revised CIA estimates of Soviet
strength. Since January he has been on leave
from Harvard, serving at the White House as
senior advisor on Soviet and Eastern European
affairs, a critical National Security Council post.
Paul. Warnke, an otherwise discreet Wash-
ington lawyer and former director of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, says that
some of Pipes's views on the Soviets are "just full
of crap." Averell Harriman, irascible octoge-
narian-that he is, went a little further than usual a
couple of years ago when he advised a visitor
that Pipes is "nothing but a damn fool." George
Jonathan Alter is an editor of The Washington
Monthly.
Kistiakowsky, Eisenhower's science advisor and
a well-known expert on arms control issues, told
me something utterly libelous about Pipes, took
it off the record, then added simply, "l can't
rationalize the man for you-that's not
possible." r
Now, whenever something like this happens-
and I've left out many similar examples-it's a
good bet that either 1) the person in question has
turned out to be at least partially right about a
subject on which his critics were sure he was
entirely wrong, or 2) he is in fact the arrogant
ideologue his detractors claim, and he does in
fact overstate his case to the point of being
irresponsible if not dangerous.
It has, to be admitted that Richard Pipes,
superhawk, falls a little into the first category.
Like other hardliners, he has at least some
reason to feel a perverse sense of vindication
over the course of U.S.-Soviet relations. For
those more hopeful about detente, the invasion
of Afghanistan was a double whammy-it was
abhorrent in itself, but it also hurt a little to have
to chalk one up for the Cassandras, whose dire
warnings turned out to contain a grain of truth.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/10: CIA-RDP90-00552R000505080008-7