No. 45: "Reset?" or "Capitulation?"
September 24th 2009 16:42
Once in a while a really good email comes our way. Today, I got such an email and just had to share it. The writer is Stan French, who is very insightful.. So,. with his permission, it is posted here for you.
" Last March on a visit to Moscow, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton was embarrassed when she presented her Russian host, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavov, with a box festooned with a button marked 'Reset' in Russian.
The idea was to have a photo -op designed to symbolize President Obama's purpose to put U.S. relations with the Kremlin on a new, more positive footing after the bi-lateral strains of the Bush years. Unfortunately for the Secretary, the State Department mistranslated the Russian word which actually meant "overcharge"not "reset".
Based on the President Obama's decision just announced to scrap the planned deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, we now know that Obama's version of resetting would best be translated as 'capitulation.' Poland calls it a betrayal.
Obama came to office evincing the reflexive hostility of many partisan Democrats to the idea of anti-missile protection for the U.S. This bizarre attitude had its roots in the bi-polar Cold War ideology of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) rather than the post cold war ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) concept that missile defense in a world of nuclear proliferation is vital.
The Left still embraces the MAD doctrine in the 1972 missile treaty. In 1984 when a missile defense system was first proposed by Reagan it was mocked by Democrats as "Star Wars". Contrary to their predictions, missile defense technology has greatly improved since then.
In practice, the 1972 accord precluded the U.S. from deploying any missile defense of its own territory---a state of grace that Democrat legislators and operatives were horrified to see Bush abandon in 2001 with a formal abrogation of the 1972 treaty and the subsequent installation of radars and interceptors at two sites, one in Alaska and the other in California.
In addition, to enhance the protection of American territory and to provide at least a modest defense of Europe against the growing threat of a ballistic missile attack by Iran, Bush proposed a so-called third site in Eastern Europe.
The Polish and Czech governments saw this as collaborative effort and a means of contributing to their own security and that of NATO allies (who voted twice unanimously for the third site). ABM is a defensive technology and self-defense is an inherent right of every country. It is not aggressive.
These key post-Cold War allies also saw it as a tangible expression of the US commitment to their security in the face of assiduous Russian efforts to reassert a sphere of influence that would turn the clock back, reestablishing in some form their unhappy status under the Kremlin's thumb.
It was precisely in the interest of advancing that ambition that the Russians assiduously opposed the deployment of that third site. They absurdly claimed that the ten interceptors in Poland would threaten the deterrent power of many hundreds of nuclear warheads they could rain down on Europe. They threatened nuclear attacks on Poles and Czechs if they did not abandon the plan.
President Bush stood firm as did Poles and Czechs but last week President Obama pulled the rug out from under them. There was a time in this country when American politics "ended at the water's edge". Foreign policy was unified. That day is no longer. Obama of course argues his case for substituting ships and submarines . Eastern Europe thinks they have been betrayed.
With his capitulation to Russia, Barack Obama has just affirmed the Obama doctrine. Team Obama believes that by canceling land based missile defenses and leaving our allies hanging out to dry, the U.S. will secure assistance from the Russians in minimizing the Iranian threat.
There is little reason to believe that will happen. The evidence suggests otherwise. Vladimir Putin is enabling the Iranian threat with nuclear technology, anti-aircraft defenses and political protection against any effective sanctions on Iran. BHO's action will reinforce present behavior.
Obama argues that his sea-based interceptors will work better but it is a safe bet they will not begin to offset the damage the Obama administration has done to our relations with key allies world-wide by "resetting" relations with Russia in a manner that looks more like capitulation."
Daily Digest and Stan French
| 43 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief