Jews with a Kabbalistic bent like to use an Aramaic expression to
describe this existence: Alma deshikra, world of
falsehood. Through my life I have been comforted by the notion
that much of the truth that does seep into contemporary
consciousness begins its journey here in the United States. Yet
with each new major utterance by our President, I am overwhelmed
by the distorted lens through which he filters our experiences.
The world Barack Obama describes is very close to being the exact
opposite of reality. With the launching of a nuclear rocket by
North Korea and his response in a major address in the
Czech Republic, we are again confronted with this inversion of
truth.
At this point, our obligation to protest, founded in the
intellectual realm, crosses into the grim turf of physical
self-defense. Obama, flashing his trademark illogic, has
committed our nation to a path toward suicide for us and genocide
for humanity. All this because the initial premises diverge from
truth, building in an inevitably corrosive warp.
Before a teeming throng of Czechs, he declared that nuclear
weapons must be eliminated from the world. This may take a long
time, he averred, beyond even his own lifetime. The United States
is morally obligated to lead in this effort
because — pay close attention now — it is the only nation
to have actually used such a device in war. Thus Barack Obama,
the man entrusted by the American People with its highest office.
What is the truth? What is the realistic, logical, responsible
path? Au contraire: the United States should commit to the world
that it will never, under any circumstances, in any financial
conditions, under any Presidential administration, ever allow
itself to be gulled into giving up its nuclear weapons. It has a
moral obligation to do this because it is the only steadfast
polity that employs its military and financial might strictly for
the purposes of mankind. Case in point: we used nuclear weapons
only to end a world war that was killing millions but never to
support any nationalistic goal.
Let’s think about these two courses and their source assumptions.
Obama asserts that a world without nuclear weapons is a safer
world. I assert it is far more dangerous. Remember, we cannot
unlearn the science; the know-how will continue to exist even if
every actual weapon is dismantled. If it can be made, it is a
real danger. If it is a danger, it requires a solution. Even a
working missile defense can never be a foolproof solution. Any
realistic plan requires a trustworthy monitor with its own
nuclear weaponry, who can threaten to shoot first and guarantee
to shoot second.
Yes, the world was safer before such weapons existed. But there
is no Luddite button to take us back there, even if the State
Department finally figures out the correct Russian word for
“Reset.” We must deal with what is, and that includes nuclear
weapons as a possibility. This, even if one could convince
Russia, China, India and Pakistan to voluntarily disarm.
Obama’s moral statement is even more dubious, not to mention
obnoxious. In what sense does our having used atomic weapons
obligate us to lead the world in eliminating them? Only if we
assume it was wrong to have used them — as taught by the Rev.
Jeremiah Wright — and we must do penance for this transgression.
This is not true in the least. We used them only as a last resort
in a World War, never in a Korea or Vietnam. The Vietnam Memorial
has 58,000 names of lives we sacrificed rather than drop one atom
bomb in Hanoi. We have behaved admirably with our arsenal, using
these weapons to deter and not to demolish, and this grants us
moral authority to lead.
Additionally, his signaling that he would not make Harry Truman’s
decision if faced by Harry Truman’s battlefield broadcasts a
unilateral surrender to bellicose nations. You can attack us to
the degree of the Japanese in World War II without fear of
nuclear reprisal. How is that helpful to our cause or to the
welfare of mankind at large?
In conclusion, it would not be a virtue if we disarmed, even if
everyone seemed to join our initiative. On the contrary, it would
be an abdication. We would be handing off leadership and
replacing it with a perceived partnership; a partnership with too
many ill-fitting parts and loose ends. Turning a cheek is one
thing, but turning a back is another matter entirely. Turn your
back on your enemies and you turn your back on the world.
