Obama Sell-Out on Missile Defense

by Ryan on September 17, 2009

in Economy,International Relations,Israel,Politics,War on Terror

In Obama’s short political career he’s thrown Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Israel, Van Jones, Grandma, etc. under the bus to advance his political agenda — it’s a bumpy ride in the Obama Nation!  Well, today he’s thrown two more entire countries under the bus: Poland and the Czech Republic! 

Obama and crew have decided to end American plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.  While the link goes into the many sensible Republican rebukes toward this move, I have another perspective.

Firstly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Obama indicate that the alternative, ship-based system is more agile and many times cheaper than a static base on the ground.  It sure is cheaper and more agile; I can’t disagree.  But think operationally for a moment – with a few dozen cruise missiles of their own fired simultaneously, Iran can overwhelm those ships with their 100 unused missiles, then fire the deadly nuclear missiles through the clear skies of a second wave.  At least a ground-based system in a sovereign territory is not as inviting as an American ship in international waters — one could be an “accident”, the other would never be.  It’s not important to build these bases to use them, just to have them:  an old deterrence principle from the Cold War apparently we’ve decided to forget at the moment.

Here’s where I will admit I get a little conspiratorial…

Chew on this:  I believe it’s likely that Israel attacks Iran before Iran’s nukes are complete.  After the counterattack, Iran will likely respond further by closing the Strait of Hormuz sending oil prices into the atmosphere and sending a dire economic shockwave throughout Western oil markets.  Without wanting to provoke Iran ourselves, no one else will sink Iran’s blockade.  So it remains.  Now, who is sitting there with tons of oil waiting suck cash out of the West and peddle influence and empire?  Russia.  On the same day the IAEA reports an advanced Iranian nuke program which Obama has decided he will eventually let them obtain through appeasement diplomacy and acquiescence, we get word that Putin’s prayers have been answered by Obama’s reversal of the Bush-era plan.

Tell me if I’m crazy thinking that this move by Gates and Obama today, on the same day of the IAEA leaks about Iran, is not positioning America in a favorable place if an impending oil crisis manifests because of Iran.  Free-flowing oil may be more enticing than keeping our promise to two friends in Eastern Europe.  Maybe I’m not thinking straight on this, but I don’t trust anything this Administration does on the surface.

{ 1 trackback }

Putin: No Quid Pro Quo on Sanctions | Axis of Right
October 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Arkady September 18, 2009 at 12:42 am

The motivations behind scrapping the shield (8 billion) is quite silly indeed, Obama fails to make sense in the most apparent manner.

However, I am wondering how this impacts our overall defensive strategy. It’s time for Europe to take care of themselves and we need to quit defending those welfare states. How about they scrap their idiotic social programs and build their own shield.

Reply

Sal September 18, 2009 at 7:28 am

If we were talking about France or The Netherlands, If might agree with you. But Poland and the Czech Republic are staunch allies that have been on our side for the war on terror even when it was unpopular to do so in the European community. Their governments, also more understanding of what Socialism leads to, are more conservative than the Western European nations. So it is really a slap in the face to some good countries that were counting on us.

Reply

Ed Darrell September 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm

The issue is that the Bush defense system was intended to defend against an Iranian missile that does not exist and is not planned.

Since the system pissed of the Russians, was a political problem to the Czechs and Poles, irritated the hell out of our NATO allies, made it appear to the world as if the U.S. were crazy and insanely chasing Iran, and cost a lot of money that we don’t have, why not kill it?

Can you name one disadvantage of killing this program? Seriously?

Reply

Ryan September 19, 2009 at 7:53 pm

If you’re old enough to remember the Cold War, there was this thing called the “peace dividend.” It wasn’t how much money you spent per se, it was whether or not what you bought prevented armageddon through deterrance. Land-based systems rather than sea-based systems create a sitting target less likely to be threatened because they are a constant presence.

The reason to keep the plan is deterrence, especially regarding those nations like Iran, bent on becoming a nuclear power, threatening Israel every chance they get, all without the 45-year history of the Cold War bipolar balance to temper their desires.

Plus, Russian economic imperialism in the former Soviet bloc is also something tangible to be worried about — the satellite nations were once economically dependent on the Soviet Union for their survival and dominated by communist apparatchicks with Moscow’s political playbook in hand. Those in power in free Eastern Europe today remember those days of tyranny and don’t look back fondly. They also are quite aware that Putin wants to bring the Russians to their former Soviet prominence in world affairs.

Obama’s move takes America out of the argument, putting an element of our security in the hands of other people. Having control over the direction of your security is the best military advantage of being a superpower. If we’re in the conversation, we might be able to direct it to our advantage. Obama took us out of the practical side of that conversation without any security benefits, just a few short-term budgetary ones which won’t add up to a hill of beans if Mahmoud in Iran wants to bring back the Mahdi with a special nuclear present for Israel and what he perceives to be a Christian-dominated apostate Europe.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: