Filed under: Foreign Policy, Law, Military, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Iran, Nuclear Disarmament, Protecting America, Russia
A full one-third of terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 have occurred in 2009, under Obama’s watch. Just mentioning.
There is a segment of the population that believes that if people of good will would just sit down together and decide to end war, then we would have eternal peace. And so it is with violence, if we would just renounce violence, then no one would be violent anymore. They believe in community, and communes. We can all just live together in harmony, sharing the work and the rewards, sharing everything. That always works out well.
President Obama has a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Apparently it has taken a year and 150 meetings to translate his vision into a policy prescription known as the Nuclear Posture Review. It took a while to wear down those within the administration who were opposed to actually disarming the United States.
President Obama feels quite comfortable criticizing our friends and telling them how to behave. Our enemies require coddling. A treaty seems to be the end game, although treaties are only words. James Carafano reminds us of some of the history of World War I.
That global conflict was billed as “the war to end all wars.” The Versailles Treaty was meant to seal the deal. But its words couldn’t stop the German military.
The treaty aimed to prevent Germany from producing cutting-edge weaponry. The Kaiser’s U-boats, for example, had taken a dreadful toll during the war.
So the treaty forbid all future “construction and purchase of all underwater vessels, even for commercial purposes … in Germany.” The Germans consequently used foreign dummy corporations to build and test their new and improved U-boat designs while Karl Doenitz developed the “wolf pack” tactics that would make Nazi submarines the scourge of the Atlantic during World War II.
The treaty also placed great restrictions on German air forces. It said nothing, however, about rockets or missiles. Wernher Von Braun brought that loophole to the attention of the German high command. In turn, it bankrolled development of the world’s first military missile — the A4. During World War II, 3,000 of them rained down on Britain.
Measuring intentions is an important part of negotiating any treaty. Yet this basic tenet of foreign policy seems to elude our current administration. Case in point: the new arms control treaty the president plans to sign.
President Obama believes that reducing nuclear arms in concert with Moscow is the first step on the “road to zero.” Unfortunately, the Russians don’t.
Moscow sees its nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its defense. Moreover, its unspoken threat of nuclear attack is central to the success of its foreign policy. Significantly diminishing those resources is the last thing Russia plans on doing.
Moscow does, however, want to see the U.S. nuclear deterrent reduced to an equal footing with its mediocre might. It also wants U.S. conventional strike capabilities and missile defense to be on the table.
The Ayatollahs in Tehran want nuclear weapons badly. They see them as giving Iran a pre-eminent place in the Middle East, and control of the region. The White House is still talking about sanctions, but they are too little and too late. The ‘Green Movement’s”efforts to discredit the regime deserved our support. The lessons that the Iranian regime has learned is that they can do whatever they want and we will not impose any price.
We now face what once we thought unthinkable, a nuclear armed Iran. A world much more dangerous and unstable. Ronald Reagan didn’t have to threaten war, he only needed to fire the air traffic controllers. It is not the words of the fine speeches that influence our adversaries and competitors, but our actions and behavior. Obama doesn’t come off as exactly a tower of strength.