That’s what our anti-nuke president is doing.
(Page 2 of 3)
Richard Perle cogently sums up the START treaty folly in yesterday’s WSJ:
With the new START treaty, the administration has continued the now senseless practice of fixing the size and character of our nuclear forces not by analyzing what is necessary for our security, but by reaching a bilateral treaty with Russia.” [This made sense] “during the Cold War when the most important issue facing our nuclear deterrent was whether its size and character was adequate to deter the nuclear forces of the Soviet Union. But no one believes the threat we face today comes from Russia’s arsenal. It simply does not matter how many weapons Russia has…. To the degree that an otherwise unimportant Cold War relic like the new START treaty limits our freedom to optimize our defenses, it will diminish rather than increase our safety.”
Slouching Towards Disarmament
With American warheads to be reduced to 1,550, it should be crucial to ensure that what we do have is in good condition and working order. But with our nuclear stockpile aging, the U.S. has suspended any nuclear testing that would ensure the weapons still work. President Bush proposed development of a new nuclear warhead to modernize our nuclear deterrent and umbrella. But Congressional Democrats including then Senator Obama adamantly and successfully resisted that.
President Obama has now formally committed to these policies in his recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). He permanently renounces all nuclear testing, and calls for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty. He also unilaterally rejects “the development of any new nuclear weapons, thus ensuring the aging of our nuclear deterrent into obsolescence and irrelevance,” as IBD explained it on April 7. In sharp contrast, Russia devotes its available resources to just the opposite, as IBD further reports: “Moscow is on track toward upgrading 80% of its strategic forces. It routinely conducts underground hydrodynamic tests that Obama considers impermissible under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty we religiously observe.”
Then, of course, there is the famous renunciation in that NPR of the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against any state in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attack America with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction, or with a crippling cyberattack. Michael Anton explains the utter fallacy of this policy in the April 19 Weekly Standard, saying, “One of the rationales for the United States forswearing the development of biological and chemical weapons (apart from their inherent repugnance) was that our nuclear arsenal remained the surest guarantee against CBW attack. Well, not if we explicitly renounce the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances.”
President Obama is well on his way to reversing Reagan’s Cold War victory, losing it without firing a shot.
Unserious Policy Meets Unacceptable Results
During the 2008 campaign, President Obama proved he was serious about our national defense, at least to enough unserious voters, by continually repeating that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be “unacceptable.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was still repeating that mantra just last month in a speech trying to soothe the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), when it should long have been obvious that a nuclear Iran was not seriously unacceptable to the Administration. It would be nice if AIPAC woke up before Israel is gone.
Obama, indeed, was in perpetual self-congratulatory mode in 2008 for his brilliant insight that he could stop the Iranian nuclear program by “talking to Iran.” Lots of unserious voters fell for this as well, blissfully unaware that every Administration had been “talking to Iran” all the way back to Carter, with no positive results. It should also have been obvious that with Iran devoted to “wiping Israel off the face of the earth,” there was nothing to talk to them about.
Nevertheless, President Obama pursued this hopelessly naïve, doomed policy from his Inauguration Speech, extending an outstretched hand to Iran and pleading for an unclenched fist in return. The mullahs have responded by mocking him ever since, and accelerating their nuclear program. The President has set deadline after deadline for diplomatic results, but let each lapse with no consequence. In his recent Persian New Year message, President Obama yet again repeated, apparently cluelessly, “our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands.” Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s swift reply: “They say they have extended a hand to Iran, but the Iranian government and nation have declined to welcome that.”
In blind pursuit of this policy he called “tough diplomacy” during his misleading campaign, President Obama left the Iranian people dying in the streets protesting for democracy, contrary to America’s history back to its own Founders of promoting democracy around the world. Obama scorned the realistic policy of regime change that this uprising offered America, while promoting precisely such regime change among America’s allies, from Israel to Honduras. Even Jimmy Carter, with his foreign policy devotion to human rights, would not have so blundered.
That is why for months now, the focus has been on President Obama’s attempts to impose meaningful sanctions on Iran, even though those sanctions have no chance of working. Iran’s ruling mullahs have long said they have much bigger issues in mind than the mere materialistic penalties such sanctions could at best impose. Moreover, it should have long been obvious that both China and Russia prefer to see America continue to be troubled by the Iranian threat, and would block any serious sanctions, particularly any that could have adverse military consequences.
Last Friday on Good Morning America, President Obama apparently inadvertently revealed that even he does not seriously believe sanctions will work. He said, “If the question is do we have a guarantee as to the sanctions we are able to institute at this stage are automatically going to change Iranian behavior, of course we don’t. The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that, you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don’t.”
Translation: a nuclear Iran is no longer so unacceptable, at least no more unacceptable than a nuclear North Korea turned out to be, where pursuit of hopelessly naïve diplomacy and sanctions failed miserably. AIPAC, call your office.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?