When Barack Obama was running for the White House, he posed as a man with a cool head in a crisis who would display calm resolve in the face of any thuggery from the world's rogue states. The candidate described by his aides as "no drama Obama" would have despised the label of a gambler. Yet his decision to abandon plans for a missile defence shield in central Europe amounts to nothing less than a colossal gamble and one that history may yet condemn as irresponsible and reckless.
Be in no doubt about the stakes: the defensive system that Mr Obama has chosen to scrap was the West's ultimate insurance policy against a nuclear-armed Iran. If all our efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal were to fail, this anti-missile shield would have provided a measure of assurance.
All that has gone by the board. Mr Obama offered a plea in mitigation, promising that America would still deploy sophisticated defences against missile attack, probably based at sea and designed to counter the short- and medium-range weapons that Iran already possesses. Any long-range variants, the President seemed to claim, amounted to insignificant gleams in the eyes of Tehran's ruthless rulers and will take many years for Iran to perfect.
This case is wholly specious: it places too much reliance on intelligence assessments which we know, from bitter experience, have a mixed record at best when it comes to forecasting the technical progress of weapons programmes in hostile states. What if Iran deploys long-range missiles sooner than America now predicts and the only defences available are designed to deal with short- and medium-range weapons? Highly sophisticated anti-missile systems cannot be rustled up in a hurry.
A prudent defence policy guards against every realistic menace, not a selection of threats. Mr Obama is behaving like an eccentric homeowner who refuses to lock his front door, but points out that a gleaming smoke detector will protect against fire. Just as the answer is to install the smoke alarm and use a latchkey, so a defensive shield should be able to counter any kind of missile, not merely those your potential adversary presently deploys.
Mr Obama's decision to gamble with Europe's security for this is what it means can only be defended if he now secures a real and incontestable gain. That hinges on Russia. The Kremlin, which bitterly opposed the missile-defence scheme, has had its way. In the next few weeks, we will all learn the answer to the burning question: what will Russia give in return? There is no doubt about what Mr Obama wants. Iran's nuclear programme continues apace and the underground centrifuges in Natanz are still enriching uranium in brazen defiance of five United Nations resolutions. Only yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would "never" halt this highly sensitive process, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.
We are nearing the endgame of diplomacy towards Iran. On October 1, Tehran's chief negotiator will meet an American official at a gathering of the world's leading powers. If those negotiations fail and no one is predicting success Mr Obama will place a new sanctions resolution before the Security Council. This time, America will probably seek to target Iran's oil and gas industries, perhaps by imposing a UN ban on any investment in this vital sector.
Will Russia allow such a resolution to pass or will Moscow follow its usual practice and ally with China to shield Iran? If the Kremlin vetoes or dilutes a sanctions resolution, this will make a peaceful resolution of the confrontation with Iran far less likely, and shorten the odds on a war in the Middle East next year. It will also show that Mr Obama's monumental gamble has failed. The President has effectively placed the fate of a vital element of his foreign policy in the hands of the Kremlin. That is a sorry pass for a superpower to reach.
#1
So what? He's not gambling with his security. And Europe has been more of a drag on us than a help. Could be doing us a favor.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/20/2009 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Richard,
The countries in Eastern Europe have been good alies in my estimation -throwing in with us in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the western europeans, those that have been under US protection for 60 years, that have been in opposition. Unfortunately, you can't screw Germany, Spain, Denmark and Norway without screwing the Poles and Czechs. This president will make it difficult for any foreign leader to trust the US for some time. And they can't really blame the leaders - it was the American people that put this knucklehead in office - and we were told who and what he was.
#3
"it was the American people that put this knucklehead in office - and we were told who and what he was"
Not entirely true, Rob06. We (at Rantburg and similar places) knew what he was; the majority of the country that gets their "news" from the Dinosaur Media - who did their level best to hide what he was - not so much.
Now they're finding out what we knew all along - and it's not pretty.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/20/2009 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I remember the Obama "apology" tour. Thousands came out. Was that in June? I wouldn't have thought they would to be thrown under the bus so soon.
#5
I have to say "So What" EUrope needs to provide their own security, True we almost all had ancestors from there, but the good ones left around 150 Years ago.
I say "defend Yourself and we'll help", not "We'll defend you, and you help".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/20/2009 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What is needed is a memo. Like the Zimmerman telegram, but supposedly from Obama to one of his underlings, to the effect of "Screw Europe! They have been sponging off us for a hundred years! If Russia wants to rule that collection of whiners, let them."
Imagine the glee in the European press, if just for a day or two they thought that memo was real.
#7
i am torn on this one..although i believe we should help the eastern euros but doing so helps the western part...it is high time the euro's pay for thier own defense -- felt this way long before our current baffoon in office -- let em pay the defense bill or pay the russian piper...i say be done with 'em, pull out of nato, bring our troops home and on the way home make glass out of iran. they've been asking for it for the last 30 years and would be a good example to the rest of the tinpots who have grown a pair in the last year
Posted by: dan ||
09/20/2009 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I fear not putting vast numbers of mooslims to the sword immediately after 9/11 may be our undoing. Things are a bit tense right at the moment with the election rapidly approaching.
Sitting in the Baltics, I would say that you are misinformed. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan in larger proportion to our numbers than just anybody else.
We've tried to punch above our weight. And this is how we get paid for it. Be certain, Russia smells that it's free to meddle.
#10
We (at Rantburg and similar places) knew what he was; the majority of the country that gets their "news" from the Dinosaur Media - who did their level best to hide what he was - not so much.
Barbara, I don't think it was just the MSM, even though their influence was VERY important. There was also that all-too-conveniently timed financial collapse last September - which didn't occur until Sarah had dragged McCain to a small but unmistakable and growing lead over The One.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/20/2009 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
That too, Ricky. And I still think that has Soros painted all over it.
I remember reading (sometime this past winter) the Sec'y of the Treasury at that time saying something to the effect that money was being transferred out of the American banking system at an alarming rate and no one knew where it was going. That's bullsh*t; they at least knew where the first stop was, even if they couldn't follow that money to its final destination, and knew who owned the funds being transferred out. If we had any decent reporters left, they'd have followed up on this. Of course, we don't and they didn't (or maybe some did, only to discover it would make Bambi look bad if they reported the truth).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/20/2009 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Barbara - So far nobody's EVER been able to convincingly refute this video, in which a Dem Congressman who runs one of Bawney Fwank's Finance subcommittees asserts that (1) in mid-September of '08, there was an "electronic run on the banks" to the tune of $500 billion in two hours, and (2) "someone threw us into the middle of the North Atlantic without a life jacket". This video's also still available (minus the C-Span caller's angry rant) on the Congressman's official website as well. This is the elephant in the middle of the room that the MSM and the government simply refuse to acknowledge - the VERY strong probability that the US financial system came under external attack, for the purpose of securing Obama's victory.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/20/2009 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Thanks, Ricky - that's probably what I was thinking of.
And, as I said, of course they knew who was pulling all that money out, whether they will admit it or not....
Wonder if Andrew Breitbart would like to investigate this next?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/20/2009 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#14
It seems to me Central Europe should form their own block. One that is (a) politically neutral and/or pro-Russian (b) Armed with Russian equipment.
They cannot trust West Europe or North America to defend them. Not in the long term. This way the Russians would see them as a market for arms sales and not a threat.
#15
Pro-Russian and armed by Russia ... I seem to recall that the Eastern Europeans went to considerable trouble and risk to get rid of that setup a little while ago.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When Barack Obama was running for the White House, he posed as a man with a cool head in a crisis who would display calm resolve in the face of any thuggery from the world's rogue states. The candidate described by his aides as "no drama Obama" would have despised the label of a gambler. Yet his decision to abandon plans for a missile defence shield in central Europe amounts to nothing less than a colossal gamble and one that history may yet condemn as irresponsible and reckless.
