It is not always the triumphant who are the greatest heroes. As power now slips away from Mikhail Gorbachev, it is well to appreciate how profound a debt all humanity owes to this man. No other single individual in our time has made so great and so positive an impact on the course of history. Yet many in our country deny his contribution, claiming that Gorbachev only did what we forced him to. If he forsook the Soviet quest for confrontation and domination, it is said, it is only because our hawks, escalating the arms race beyond Soviet means, made him say uncle. Let us not be satisfied with such self-serving historical analysis. This theory of "forfeit from necessity" belies all our historical experience. What was Stalin not willing to do to his people to achieve great power status? Has material privation in Iraq compelled Saddam Hussein to renounce his imperial ambitions? It is Gorbachev's unexpectedly generous heart that has made all the difference. By some historical miracle, a man came to power in the Kremlin who could talk of "mutual security," and of our common responsibilities to the planet, even before his American counterparts. American technology did not compel unprecedented Soviet openness. Gorbachev evidently did not intend such a far-reaching wave of liberation as has swept the old Soviet empire. He did not design these events, nor was he the master of the forces he unleashed. But who could have imagined that the hand that commanded the Soviet army would ever let the restive peoples of the empire run toward freedom without a bloodbath? A decade ago, we were told by our experts that the Soviets would never allow Solidarity to set Poland free lest it weaken the Soviets' grip on East Germany, whose necessity to the empire was beyond question. Now, because of a single man's respect for the humanity of others, not only is Poland free but Germany is united. The butchers of Tienamen Square provide all the proof we need that it might have been otherwise. How is it that what some experts once regarded as an impossibility they now dismiss as a historical necessity? Gorbachev's detractors among us have reminded us that Gorbachev remained a communist. Even after the coup, he still clung to some of the structures and ideas of the old, discredited system. Gorbachev's social vision may have been flawed. But our judgment of leaders should take into account the cultural context within which they live. Who is the greater friend of the human spirit, the leader of a totalitarian system who lifts the dark hood of repression, or the leader of a democratic society who narrows the scope of individual liberty and fosters the growth of covert and unaccountable government operations? As the architect of his country's future, Gorbachev has, of course, failed. He waited too long to make fundamental reforms. He lacked an adequate vision for a workable future, and consequently his stance was too purely reactive. As the price of his failures, Gorbachev has finally been overrun by events, and leadership has devolved onto others. To the extent that better decisions by Gorbachev might have averted the current chaos in the Soviet Union, millions of Gorbachev's countrymen are also paying a price for his errors. As in some Olympic events, however, our rating of the man's performance must take into account the "difficulty factor" of the maneuver being attempted. How humanly possible was it for a leader inheriting the bondage of the old Soviet regime to succeed in leading the nation all the way to the Promised Land of political and economic liberalization? Gorbachev will not be remembered as the father of his country, like an Attaturk or a George Washington. He is a hero not so much for what he created as for what he allowed to come to be. Most of all, Gorbachev has been the midwife of the possibility of genuine peace and world order. For two generations, the gravity of superpower competition pulled everything into its malign orbit. Then a new kind of Soviet leader made possible a new kind of world. Is there a chance for peace in Cambodia? There wouldn't be if the Soviets still supported the imperialism of the Vietnamese. Might the Arab-Israeli conflict be unwound? That chance would not exist if the Soviets still were determined to keep Middle Eastern waters troubled. Have the hands on the Doomsday clock been set back? Thank the timely appearance of a great man.

Andrew Bard Schmookler is the author of Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds that Drive Us to War. ??