Unilateral Disarmament Lives
Sep 17th, 2009 by David Anderson
The President abandoned the European missle shield right on the eve of 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland (17 September 1939). I will leave it to the experts to determine if we are better off with the shield or a stronger relationship with Russia. What I don’t buy is that it is in any way reasonable to abandon the shield without a deal from Russia to put the screws on Iran.
If I found it better to abandon the Bush era plan, I would have at least gotten something for it. I would have demanded that Russia not sell or install the air defense system for Iran (then paid them for the money they would lose), demand Russia shut down its enrichment facilities in Iran and do it in Russia under IAEA verification, get the locations of Iranian sites, no advanced missiles go to Iran, and demand that reactors that they build around the world be in full compliance with nuclear non proliferation. Then the need for a shield for Europe is reduced. Just suspending it for the hope of future cooperation is like giving a car dealer 20k and hoping that he will give you a decent car one day.
Back in the Carter days there was a movement to unilaterally freeze U. S. Nukes in the hope that the Soviets would follow. The more we weakened ourselves the more they built. The only way to peace proved to be through strength. The way to get fewer arms ended up being by building more.
Now President Obama seems to be proving more like Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan. He is getting more cold feet on fighting the “good war”, cutting the military recruitment and eliminating reenlistment bonuses that were promised earlier in the year, he is reducing numbers when we need more troops not fewer. I want to support the President on National Security policy, but he has to give me what he campaigned on and not cave to the far left. Our nation is depending on his leadership.
If Obama got something from Russia, he’s not going to tell YOU.
People called President Bush a go-it-alone President for his actions leading us to Iraq. President Obama now shows that he is also a go-it-alone President. His go-it-alone policy presents at least as much, if not more, danger to the US and our allies as getting in to Iraq did.
I hear that Russia has some oil. Is this a case of dissarming for oil? I have no real proof of anything but neither did President Bush’s opponents.
That is the third most misguided comment you have made this month, Noman. The only way this should be done is a public deal. Sure there can be side deals that are secret, but the viability of our alliances as well as the assurance that we can hold the Russians accountable can only be done by a public agreement.
Good points Tim. Obama’s unilateral go it alone approach overrides existing agreements with Poland, a nation that has given us substantive help in the war on terror, and the Czech Republic. Both of these nations were under considerable pressure from Russia not to ally with the United States. In addition countries such as Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Georgia etc. all now know that the word of the U.S. cannot be trusted and that the cold hard fist of the Russians can now be used in their direction. We have to wait and see. My guess is that the Russians will allow us to discuss Iranian sanctions. The same types of sanctions that have not worked for years.
We have sacrificed a tangible asset for an intangible future promise.
got a link for the recruitment/retention statement? I haven’t seen that anywhere else.
No major strategic and tactical decision is without its pluses and minuses, and this one is no exception.
This decision has the backing of both Poland and Czech Republic, as well as NATO and Israel, and, of course Russia.
Obama’s approach shifts the missile deterrent from land to sea, which is instantly available, compared to the land based installations which would not be ready until 2015.
For a well reasoned and knowledgeable discussion of this issue, take the time to read this WSJ article
right here!
Nothing like informing Poland and the Czechs at the twelfth hour, though, eh?
So far we have an administration that is soft on Iran, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, yet is tough on Israel and Honduras.
“Change we can believe in.” NOT.
looks like the dems in the house and senate no longer believe that Afghanistan is the “good war”. democrat “leaders” are already voicing oppostion to troop increases.
Obama is being played for a fool. Just as the Bank CEO’s skipped his speech this week so has Putin dismissed him as Commander in Chief.
Obama is a fool and nitwit.
Mike Protack
Interesting that Israel supports this Obama policy change, as per the WSJ article I referenced. Did you read it Mike?
I believe there is value to increasing our short and medium range sea based defense in the area. I do not believe that it means it should substitute for our land based system in Europe. Iran just successfully launched a satelilte in February. This means it already has ICBM capability because it is the same technology. The fact that it will take at least 3 years to set up our land based system and more likely 5 is more of a reason to not to wait.
As I said, I can see the argument for changing the policy. I can not see changing the policy without making the allies who trusted us safer. If we want to change policy, we should get something for it. I would cutting Iran off at the Russian pass would be more valuable than either policy.
“If Obama got something from Russia…”
Oh, he’ll get something from Russia. The finger.
In terms of objective reality, what BO did is known in international diplomacy as total capitulation. No wonder the Russians approve.