Obama's Unilateral Disarmament Of The U.S.

In 1967, during the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, America had 31,255 nuclear warheads. By the time the Soviet Union fell, we had 22,217 nuclear warheads. By 2010, that number had been reduced to 5,113 warheads. Obama is now considering whether to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads.

To put that in perspective, that would leave us with approximately the same number of nuclear weapons as France, just a few more than China, about two times as many as Pakistan, and about twenty times less than Russia. Obama would see us go from overwhelming nuclear superiority to something akin to nuclear parity with other nuclear powers. He would do so without respect to tomorrow's threats, nor in consideration of how such unilateral disarmament will effect the perception of either our allies who depend on our nuclear umbrella or, more importantly, our opponents, who must consider it.

In an AEI Center For Defense Studies working paper, written at the time that Obama was promising to significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal as part of START to just under 2,000 warheards, the authors wrote:

The third atomic age demands American nuclear capabilities that are flexible, adaptable and resilient in the face of new challenges and emerging threats, the likely rise of additional nuclear powers and the expansion of nuclear strike capabilities among a number of existing nuclear weapon states.  Current American policy, however, seems to be moving in the opposite direction.  U.S. nuclear forces are being reduced; new nuclear weapons, capabilities and missions have been proscribed; the conditions under which the United States would threaten  nuclear retaliation have been narrowed; the enduring value of nuclear weapons is being  challenged; and the vision of a nuclear-free world is being heralded as a desirable – and  ultimately achievable – goal, if only the United States leads the way.

We are concerned with the trends evident in the evolution of U.S. nuclear policy.  They suggest to us a highly questionable premise; namely, that the mere possession of weapons that have helped keep the peace for more than 60 years is more dangerous to American security today than the motivations of those who may possess – or actually use – them tomorrow. In addition, we suggest that our current nuclear course reflects a failure to understand America’s rise as the dominant global security ―provider.‖ Influence in world affairs has resulted not simply from its liberal philosophy, its commitment to democratic  principles and the rule of law or its military-technical superiority in conventional forces,  but from the skillful management and prudent application of its nuclear muscle – as both a deterrent to attack and a guarantor of security for others. The implications of this  suggest that America has grown weary of the global responsibility it has assumed as a  result of its nuclear might and would prefer to shed the burdens associated with global  leadership.  And this portends additional challenges to America’s supremacy by those  who would see U.S. policy as a further sign of American weakness and decline and an  opportunity to restructure world affairs more to their own liking.

As a young campus leftie at Columbia, Obama penned an article that reads as a paean to the anti-war agenda of 80's campus radicals. At one point in the article, "Breaking the War Mentality," Obama argued for a nuclear freeze - a movement we now know was started by Soviet agents in Western Europe - and criticized Reagan for pushing ahead with new weapons systems.  And in 2009, Obama, as our new leader announced the penultimate leftie fantasy, a world without nuclear weapons.  Obama would bet our national defense, and the defense of the free West, on pure fairy dust.  Nonetheless, it appears that Obama is trying to make good towards that campaign promise, irrespective of how dangerous it might be for the U.S. or, that matter, the world.

Obama's desire to disarm America also must be looked at in Obama's much larger plan to minimize work on our ABM shield and gut our conventional forces.   The game he is playing is incredibly dangerous.  At a minimum, if he is allowed to continue ahead with all of his plans, it will mean that the Pax American of the past 60 years is rapidly coming to a close.  It will create a power vacuum that most assuredly will be filled by others - Russia in Europe, China in the East, and Iran in the Middle East seem the most likely bets.  And it will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the world as allies no longer feel protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and opponents may be inspired to overcome our much depleted umbrella.  Such is the cost to fund Obama's entitlements and his reelection campaign.  

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Weakness Invites The Predators

The Pax Romana - the Roman Peace - lasted for hundreds of years because few were willing to challenge the vastly superior military might of ancient Rome. The Pax Americana has lasted in Europe since 1945 and, other than Vietnam (which was not a war against the U.S. at its onset, it was against the French, but then U.S. later substituted in the ongoing conflict), in most parts of the Far East since 1952 for similar reasons. But show weakness and the predators will always come. In the wake of Vietnam, we had Gulf War 1, and in wake of Vietnam, Mogadishu, and the Cole, we had 9-11. And today, as many on the left advocate radical pacifism, as Obama cuts military spending, as he cuts missile defense and accedes to Russian demands, as Obama plays nice with Iran, we have the mad mullahs of Iran making a mockery of Obama as they speed towards a nuclear weapon and we have this:

China should build the world's strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the global "champion," a senior Chinese PLA officer says in a new book reflecting swelling nationalist ambitions. . . .

If history teaches us anything, it is that a perception of superior power and a perceived willingness to use it are the only assurances of peace. Let that perception around the world falter, and the predators will come. That lesson of history is one Obama and our left wholly ignore at our peril.

Update: Speak of the devil - having composed this just a bit ago, I now see a NYT article on how Obama is further reducing, tactically and strategically, our nuclear arsenal. This from the NYT:

As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons. . . .

Mr. Obama’s new strategy — which would annul or reverse several initiatives by the Bush administration — will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, which all presidents undertake. . . .

Many elements of the new strategy have already been completed, according to senior administration and military officials who have been involved in more than a half-dozen Situation Room debates about it, and outside strategists consulted by the White House.

As described by those officials, the new strategy commits the United States to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration. . . .

This is particularly critical. A big part of our ability for effective deterrence, particularly with Iran and North Korea, lies with the ability to hit underground facilities that conventional weapons cannot touch. Yet another self-imposed weakness for no reason other than to allow Obama to pose as the supreme moral being. To continue with the NYT article:

“It will be clear in the document that there will be very dramatic reductions — in the thousands — as relates to the stockpile,” according to one senior administration official whom the White House authorized to discuss the issue this weekend. Much of that would come from the retirement of large numbers of weapons now kept in storage.

Other officials, not officially allowed to speak on the issue, say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense. Those weapons are now believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands.

At the same time, the new document will steer the United States toward more non-nuclear defenses. It relies more heavily on missile defense, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Persian Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. . . .

Better check with Russia on that one. And indeed, how did the NYT miss reporting the fact that if we are going to be relying on Missile Defense, how is it that that is one of the very few places our world record holding profligate spender in chief chose to cut by 20% in his budget. Insanity indeed.

While Mr. Obama ended financing last year for a new nuclear warhead sought by the Bush administration, the new strategy goes further. It commits Mr. Obama to developing no new nuclear weapons, including a low-yield, deeply-burrowing nuclear warhead that the Pentagon sought to strike buried targets, like the nuclear facilities in North Korea and Iran. Mr. Obama, officials said, has determined he could not stop other countries from seeking new weapons if the United States was doing the same. . . .

This is utterly suicidal - and grossly superficial - moral relativism. If Obama is unable to distinguish between why we should have nuclear weapons and why it is dangerous to allow Iran to develop the same capacity, this man is an ideologue who refuses to see any fundamental differences between the two countries. And this guy is the leader of the free world? We are in trouble indeed. In an effort to promote peace, Obama may well lead us backwards into war.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats & The Future of Iraq

The Democrats are going apoplectic. Not only does it appear that we will succeed in Iraq, but we will maintain a long term presence to provide internal and external stability. This would be fatal to all the non-principles (America is Bad, Bush is Incompetent, Partisan Political Gain, Iraq was a Mistake, Peace Through Superior Surrender-Power) that our Democrats hold dear. Poor Joe Klein at Time Magazine is even demanding we toss out the Constitution to prevent this one. And Harold Myerson, the legal scholar at the Washington Post, sees this as a nefarious plot by President Bush. Indeed, he warns "Bush's efforts to make the U.S. presence permanent would drape the necks of the Republican presidential and congressional candidates with one large, squawking albatross. " It sounds as if Republicans could be tagged with the eternal shame of success.

With the pax Americana taking hold in Iraq, with Iraqi forces increasing daily in size and effectiveness, and with the drawdown of U.S. forces having begun, it was reported yesterday that President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki had agreed to begin negotiations on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq. Basing troops long term in Iraq would be done, at the invitation of Iraq and for precisely the same reasons as justified statitoning troops in post-war Germany, Japan and Korea: to provide for the internal stability of a nascent Democracy and to protect against external threats. As to external threats to Iraq, Amir Taheri has pointed out that the countries surrounding Iraq have long been planning how to carve it up after the inevitable Democrat-led U.S. withdrawal. And as to internal stability, this from the NY Sun, quoting General Lute:

"From the Iraqi side, the interest that they tend to talk about is that a long-term relationship with us, where we are a reliable, enduring partner with Iraq, will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bet in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership of the United States," he said.

"To the extent it doesn't cause sectarian groups to have to hedge their bet independently, we're confident that this will actually contribute to reconciliation in the long run," he said.

The agreement in principle "signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security," the general said.

Read the entire article. (H/T Don Surber)

A stable Iraq is the last thing radical Islamists, Middle East despots, or our Democrats want. According to Time Magazine’s Joe Klein:

The Democrats are lining up. . . . to block any Bush attempt to pass a Status of Forces Agreement treaty with Iraq. The question is, Will Bush try to bypass the Senate by making the SOFA an executive agreement with the Iraqi government? The answer is, of course he will.

. . . But any agreement that opens the door to permanent bases should require Senate approval. . . .

What an ass Joe Klein is. One, a SOFA agreement does not, itself, directly obligate us to station any troops on foreign soil. It merely sets the terms of how such soldiers will be treated in a foreign country. Moreover, SOFA agreements – which we have with virtually every country where our troops are stationed - are not and never have been treaties requiring Senate approval. The President negotiates and signs those agreements as Commander in Chief. As to the whether the Congress can dictate troop deployment once hostilities are ended, that implicates the Constitutional separation of powers between the President as Commander in Chief with day to day control of the military and the Congress whose authority is limited to budgeting and declaration of war. Apparently those nuances of Constitutional law are beyond the grasp of Mr. Klein. Just like the Second Amendment, it would seem that the Constitution need not be consulted when it conflicts with an end that the left is emotionally invested in achieving.

As to the Democrats “lining up,” well, I guess its not as if we have any vital national security interests at stake in Iraq and the Middle East:

Obama has definitively stated that he will "not maintain permanent bases in Iraq." Is it just me, or does that phrasing seem carefully worded?

You can read Hillary’s letter to the White House on the issue here. I love Hillary’s take on this. “To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region . . .” She does not elaborate on this point, but I would love to hear her explain this in a debate. This is the logic of the far left. America can only succeed by losing. We can only achieve a lasting peace through defeat. It is nihilistic insanity.

John Edwards, though, takes the cake. In demanding a complete withdrawal from Iraq, John Edwards states that “Bush is planning to pursue a 'Korea-style' American occupation of Iraq for 10 years or more.”

How is our stationing of forces in Korea an occupation? An occupation denotes imposing military control over a region. Stationing troops in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government would be no more of an occupation than was the stationing of our troops in Germany or Japan after their own democratic governments been formed. They are there only at the host country invitation and to provide internal and external stability. And in every foreign country that our soldiers have been so stationed, that is precisely what has occurred. If Mr. Edwards is claiming that Korea does not want our troops there, the man has no touch with reality. The last politician who planned to remove our forces from the Korean peninsula was President Carter. And it was the Koreans who went nuts.

It would seem that our Copperheads are walking ever ever further down the road of defeat in Iraq and the world at large. It is a dangerous road for them indeed.

Read More...

Summary only...