Obama’s no Reagan on nuclear issues

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the memes the left is currently employing in response to criticism of Obama’s nuclear policies is some variation on the theme: “But Reagan wanted a nuclear-free world too.”

Sure he did. Doesn’t everybody? But just because the two men wanted the same distant (and probably unobtainable) goal doesn’t not equate them, as James Carafano points out today in the Washington Examiner:

Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of “moral” leadership, to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It’s a false premise…

Reagan recognized that the ultimate goal of arms negotiations is to make the world safer, more stable and more free. To eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, he went about eliminating the dependence — both ours and others’ — on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security.

Thus, the first items on Reagan’s agenda were building up U.S. conventional forces and introducing missile defenses. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength.

Obama has it backward. He started with cutting back on defense — especially in acquisition programs. Bye-bye, F-22.

He also cut missile defense, starting with systems to protect the homeland. But even that wasn’t enough to make the Russians happy.

“The problem is our America partners are developing missile defenses,” objected Prime Minister Vladimir Putin last December. “Our partners may come to feel completely safe.” That sounds like a leader who still thinks that maintaining the threat of nuclear attack is a good idea. If not, why is it a “problem” for Americans to feel safe?

Reagan understood his adversaries. Obama does not.

Russia remains our adversary, although not in exactly the same way as before. To the problem of Iran and North Korea, two countries that were already adversaries back when Reagan was president but which have now become (or are about to become) nuclear adversaries of ours as well, Obama has no answer. Bush had no good answer either, but at least he did not telegraph a posture of appeasement and weakness, as Obama has.

Of course, it depends what you think Obama’s goal is. I believe that Obama wants to weaken our standing in the world vis a vis other nations, but even I don’t believe he wants us annihilated in the process. Following that logic, his stance on the subject appears to be the combination of knave and fool we’ve come to expect from the man.

Death of Polish President Kaczynski

The New Neo Posted on by

It is impossible not to suspect that foul play was involved in the plane crash death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski in Russia:

Polish President Lech Kaczynski and some of the country’s highest military and civilian leaders died on Saturday when the presidential plane crashed as it came in for a landing in thick fog in western Russia, killing 97, officials said.

Russian and Polish officials said there were no survivors on the 26-year-old Tupolev, which was taking the president, his wife and staff to events marking the 70th anniversary of the massacre in Katyn forest of thousands of Polish officers by Soviet secret police.

But that does not mean the suspicions are correct. Even the Soviets could not have made the weather foggy, for example. Nor could they have packed the plane with so many high Polish officials at once (perhaps I’m wrong about this, but wouldn’t it be standard to use several planes for the trip, so that in case of just such a disaster so many members of the government would not be wiped out at once? The article hints at the answer: the Polish government is strapped for funds.)

The crash devastated the upper echelons of Poland’s political and military establishments. On board were the army chief of staff, the navy chief commander, and heads of the air and land forces. Also killed were the national bank president, deputy foreign minister, army chaplain, head of the National Security Office, deputy parliament speaker, Olympic Committee head, civil rights commissioner and at least two presidential aides and three lawmakers, the Polish foreign ministry said.

At this moment, we cannot know if foul play was involved. But one thing we can unequivocally say is that the deaths are tragic for Poland, and deeply ironic as well. After all, the Polish president and all the others were flying to Russia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, in which the Soviet secret police killed thousands of Polish officers who were prisoners of war, an act which the Soviets had denied and covered up for years, only admitting it in 1990.

If this were the plot of a movie, it would seem too wildly coincidental. But it is true:

“This is unbelievable – this tragic, cursed Katyn,” Kaczynski’s predecessor, Aleksander Kwasniewski, said on TVN24 television.

It is “a cursed place, horrible symbolism,” he said. “It’s hard to believe. You get chills down your spine.”

And speaking of chills, Russian PM Vladimir Putin has taken charge of the investigation into the crash. You might say he’s highly qualified, having once been a member of the KGB.

Sarah Palin, Obama’s needler-in-chief…

The New Neo Posted on by

…expounds on the Obama Doctrine, and a few other things as well:

Such a relief that we dodged that Palin-VP bullet in 2008.

[NOTE: In the clip, Palin describes the Obama Doctrine this way (at 0:50-0:59: “coddling enemies and alienating allies.”

I’m not entirely sure, and I could be wrong about this, but I believe I just may have been the first person in the blogosphere or media (or at least one of the first) to use the phrase “Obama Doctrine” in that manner, back on September 17, 2009, when I wrote:

[Obama’s scrapping the missile shield for Eastern Europe] sends a larger signal to all the parties involved, one that is completely consistent with the one I previously stated here: offend our allies and friends, and cozy up to our enemies.

The Obama Doctrine.

I’m not accusing Palin of plagiarizing; not at all. I think it’s more a case of great minds thinking alike.]

[ADDENDUM: On further perusal, I managed to find this, from June of 2009. Perhaps the originator of the joke?]

Obama and defense expert Gates: on being “comfortable” with the nuclear posture

The New Neo Posted on by

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama had this to say in response to Sarah Palin’s criticism of his nuclear posture:

The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues…What I would say to [critics] is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.

Except for one thing—note Obama’s use of the odd phrase “comfortable with it.” If this NY Times article is to be believed, Gates initially opposed Obama’s decision but was overruled by Obama, who did not take his advice [emphasis mine]:

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Guess the Times let that cat out of the bag. But don’t sit on a hot stove waiting for its writers and editors—or many others in the MSM—to call Obama on this one. After all, Gates is “comfortable” with it all now, isn’t he? But perhaps it’s only because Obama is his Commander-in-Chief.

More on Obama’s nuclear posture

The New Neo Posted on by

Charles Krauthammer lambasts Obama’s recent declaration of a new nuclear posture, repeating some of the main points from this already-discussed video. But in print Krauthammer adds the following illustration of how the policy of no-nukes for signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty even if they attack us biologically or chemically is an absurdity:

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

My first thought on reading this was: don’t give the administration any ideas. They’ll do that next.

But my second, and more serious thought was that it’s an odd way to try to discourage nuclear proliferation—by reducing the penalty for other types of insidious and illegal warfare, therefore probably making them more likely to occur. What a bizarre tradeoff!

The actual wording of the Obama document gives us a better idea of what is being attempted here [emphasis mine]:

Since the end of the Cold War, the strategic situation has changed in fundamental ways. With the advent of U.S. conventional military preeminence and continued improvements in U.S. missile defenses and capabilities to counter and mitigate the effects of CBW [chemical and biological warfare], the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks ”“”“ conventional, biological, or chemical ”“”“ has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.

To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

It’s hard to envision what sort of reasoning is behind this. The peacetime value that nearly everyone can agree that nuclear weapons have had throughout the sixty-five years of their existence has been as deterrence, both to nuclear and other types of attacks (as Obama knows, since his document clearly states this by saying that until now the United States has “reserved the right to employ nuclear weapons to deter CBW attack on the United States and its allies and partners”).

So, what would be the point of giving up that deterrent power? The implicit quid pro quo seems to be to get more countries in comply with the NPT. But even were that to happen, would the policy not at the same time encourage these other sorts of attacks, either on the US or its allies (if it has any left after Obama is through)?

Conventional weapons are fine and dandy, I suppose. But they hardly represent the sort of deterrence afforded by at least the threat of using a nuclear weapon. Of course, as is his tendency, Obama hedges even this new policy of non-nuclear-deterrence by saying (read the small print):

Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat.

So basically Obama is saying “I didn’t really mean it. I’ll use those nuclear weapons if I feel like it, whenever I feel like it.” And although that’s somewhat reassuring (if you believe it) in placing back a certain uncertainty about the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore a small amount of the deterrent power previously provided by such a threat, it leaves one scratching one’s head. If there’s an escape clause like that, what’s the whole thing about, anyway? “Posturing” is really the best word for it; Obama puts forth a promise and reneges on it, within the very same document.

It’s really not known how believable the US’s nuclear threat has been in recent years. Were other nations really convinced that this country would retaliate so powerfully and aggressively? As the only country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons in combat, we did have some credibility on that score. But the point was that, although no one knew for sure, we presented a credible enough threat to at least give other nations pause.

However, this recent document of Obama’s is so confusing that I’m not sure what other nations will make of it. But it seems to me that it removes some of that previous deterrent threat while at the same time providing little that would convince a nation that joining the NPT would be in its best interests—which, after all, appears to be the main goal of the paper in the first place.

And it doesn’t even begin to address the fact that rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, which laugh at the NPT and its signatories, will go their merry way and are very likely to continue on their present nuclear paths. Obama’s new posture is less likely to reassure other, non-nuclear nations that he will keep his word to protect them, not more.

The document also contains a mind-boggling passage addressed to North Korea and Iran, although not by name [emphasis mine]:

In the case of countries not covered by this assurance ”“”“ states that possess nuclear weapons and states not in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations ”“”“ there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW attack against the United States or its allies and partners…

Yet that does not mean that our willingness to use nuclear weapons against countries not covered by the new assurance has in any way increased. Indeed, the United States wishes to stress that it would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

What could be the purpose of adding this restrained language? Remember, it is addressed to rogue enemy states such as North Korea and Iran that are out of compliance with non-proliferation and clearly pursuing nuclear weaponry ends, and who might even use such weapons in first strikes against either the US or its allies. It projects conciliatory weakness at the same time it claims to offer a threat of strength.

Why not instead use language that goes something like this: “Our commitment to use every means available to defend ourselves and our allies against attack by countries not covered by the new assurance has remained as firm as ever”? As written, the document seems to be saying instead: “Don’t worry; you can get away with quite a bit before we’ll even consider striking.”

A country destroyed: Zimbabwe

The New Neo Posted on by

Read it and weep for Zimbabwe, a country that’s gotten so bad that its mainly black population pines for the days of white rule. At least they had jobs back then.

Liberal journalist Kristof is more PC than the people he interviews, who mince no words in describing their lot:

“When the country changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, we were very excited,” one man, Kizita, told me in a village of mud-walled huts near this town in western Zimbabwe. “But we didn’t realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us.”

“It would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come,” added a neighbor, a 58-year-old farmer named Isaac. “It was better under Rhodesia. Then we could get jobs. Things were cheaper in stores. Now we have no money, no food.”

Over and over, I cringed as I heard Africans wax nostalgic about a nasty, oppressive regime run by a tiny white elite. Black Zimbabweans responded that at least that regime was more competent than today’s nasty, oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe.

Kristof laughably thinks a thug like Mugabe would respond to pressure from the world. After all, his white predecessors did:

The tragedy that has unfolded here can be reversed if Mr. Mugabe is obliged by international pressure, particularly from South Africa, to hold free elections. Worldwide pressure forced the oppressive Rhodesian regime to give up power three decades ago. Now we need similar pressure, from African countries as well as Western powers, to pry Mr. Mugabe’s fingers from his chokehold on a lovely country.

Good luck with that, Mr. Kristof. Actually, I hope you’re correct. But that’s not my reading of Mugabe.

One person who did see what lay ahead—and I know it’s not PC to say this—was Rhodesia’s former Prime Minister Ian Smith, white racist and all. In a previous post about Mugabe and Rhodesia, where I wrote about how reluctant other African leaders are to condemn Mugabe, I added [emphasis mine]:

[Mugabe’s] history as a political prisoner of ten years’ duration in the 1970s under Ian Smith’s colonial government also gave him a linkage to Mandela, but their subsequent histories have been far different. Mugabe has been corrupted by power””or perhaps he was corrupt in the first place””and the course of the two countries have diverged significantly as a result.

But possibly the greatest irony of Mugabe’s vile rule is that it’s the Western post-colonial powers such as Britain who are speaking out against him, while his fellow African liberators are mostly silent or “gentle” in their chiding.

And Ian Smith, the widely-reviled final colonial head of Rhodesia and strong opponent of black rule, who insisted that Mugabe’s leadership would lead to the destruction of the country, turns out to have been, for all his flaws (and there were many), better for the country and even for its black population than the liberation hero Mugabe.

In an article in the Telegraph written on Smith’s death in November of 2007, Graham Boynton””who had once been a staunch opponent of Smith””came to the following realizations:

“Although the first 20 years of Mugabe’s rule saw a slow, somewhat even-paced decline, the calamitous collapse has been achieved in little more than half a decade, an extraordinary feat of self-destruction when one considers that it took more than a century for Ian Smith’s white antecedents to carve a modern, functioning, European-style society out of raw African bushveld.

But that has been the story of post-colonial Africa and, although this week’s obituaries will largely dismiss Smith as a colonial caricature, a novelty politician from another age, if you were to go to Harare today and ask ordinary black Zimbabweans who they would rather have as their leader””Smith or Mugabe””the answer would be almost unanimous. And it would not be Mugabe.”

Well, now Kristof has done the asking, and we’ve got the answer.

Two retirements

The New Neo Posted on by

The first is no surprise at all: Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who is nearly ninety, and as a liberal wanted to wait to retire until he knew another liberal would be appointed to fill his place. Now he can do just that. And if anyone thinks such political considerations don’t play a huge part in the timing of such things, he/she is profoundly and hopelessly naive.

The second is none other than Bart Stupak, Congressman from Michigan who kept a fairly low national profile in his eighteen years in the House—until recently, that is. His swan song contained the following whopper:

Stupak told The Associated Press that attacks on him for his role in the abortion debate did not influence his decision and he could win re-election if he tried.

Of course. And then:

Stupak told the AP he wants to spend more time with his family and start a new career after nine terms in Congress.

I wonder what that “new career” will be. What was he promise—first for his cooperation, and then for this valiant falling on his sword to allow another more viable Democratic candidate to enter the arena?

Cows off the hook–for now

The New Neo Posted on by

This is not—I repeat, not—an April Fools joke.

For quite a while scientists who study global warming have claimed that (and there is just no way to be delicate about this) cow flatulence and excrement—or what this article refers to as their “wind and manure”—have been significant contributors to the phenomenon, because of the methane produced. This has acted as a sort of twofer for the AGW crowd: they get to blame people for raising so many cows, and they also get to promote vegetarianism for humankind.

Now comes the startling news that under certain circumstances, cow grazing reduces global warming rather than increases it (scientists often have such difficult making up their minds!). The mechanism in this case is—I kid you not—laughing gas.

Yes, apparently the grass on which cattle would graze shelters microbes that produce nitrous oxide in the spring if it is kept long. But when cattle have grazed there and the grass is short, the microbes have trouble wintering over and less of this particular greenhouse gas is released come spring.

This has thrown some environmental scientists into a tizzy. To wit:

Dr Butterbach-Bahl said the study overturned assumptions about grazing goats and cattle.

“It’s been generally assumed that if you increase livestock numbers you get a rise in emissions of nitrous oxide. This is not the case,” he said.

Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

But Dr Butterbach-Bahl pointed out that the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes. He also pointed out that much of the red meat eaten in the western world if from intensively farmed animals in southern countries.

He said the study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat but shows grazing livestock is not always bad for global warming.

If one thing is clear from the above excerpt, it’s that the state of knowledge on even such a small part of the larger global warming picture is meager, to say the least. The interactions are mind-bogglingly complex and poorly understand, even among the known factors, and there are probably countless unknown factors as well that have not even been considered.

[NOTE: And has anyone else realized that the name of the good doctor is somewhat reminiscent of a type of turkey that used to be very popular in supermarkets around Thanksgiving time?]

Is Larry Summers leaving?

The New Neo Posted on by

The answer is “yes,” if this report by Joshua Green at the Atlantic can be credited.

I wondered about something similar last fall, in which I quoted this article by Charles Gasparino, who reported:

I’m told that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers have both complained to senior Wall Street execs that they have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything ”” not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world’s leading authorities…

As one CEO of a major financial firm told me: “The economic guys say that when they explain the costs of programs, the policy guys simply thank them for their time and then ignore what they say.”

In other words, the economic people feel that they have almost no say in this administration’s policy decisions.

According to Joshua Green, Geithner’s star has risen as Summer’s has remained fallen. Green ascribes Summer’s dissatisfaction to his hurt massive ego and lack of power. And while I don’t doubt that Summers has a very hefty sense of his own self-importance, I think (actually, I hope) it may be more than that that’s eating him.

Perhaps—just perhaps—he thinks the Obama administration is doing the wrong thing economically? I realize that by saying this I am probably giving Summers far more credit than he deserves. But I retain a naive hope that someone in the Obama administration actually retains some sort of intellectual and moral integrity about what’s been happening, and will ultimately act on it by refusing to be part of it any more and spilling the beans.

I know, I know. That’s why I referred to myself as “naive.” Most of these people long ago sold out whatever integrity they may have ever possessed. But, like Diogenes, I keep searching—in the most unlikely places.

One place I will never search again, however, is anywhere near Hillary Clinton. There has been much speculation on if and when Hillary will leave the administration. I don’t think it matters, and I don’t much care—unless she goes out soon, and with a mammoth tell-all speech or book that will expose and shame the Obama administration for all time.

Otherwise, my opinion of her is fixed: she’s been completely co-opted and corrupted, and has no credibility left with the more centrist Democrats and moderates who had previously supported her. Her hypocrisy is profound—and although that probably always was true, it never before has been so crystal clear.

Most intriguing and yet curiously disappointing headline of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

“China Offers High-Speed Rail to California.”

Just picture it: across the bridge to end all bridges or the tunnel to end all tunnels, the high-speed rail shoots off, flashing us straight from Shanghai to San Francisco in record time.

But alas. It’s only China “supplying the technology, equipment and engineers to build high-speed rail lines” within the state of California.

Obama the Great will settle the Middle East conflict

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama’s grandiosity continues.

All of the stubborn world problems that previous presidents—Democrat and Republican alike, none of them possessed of his transformative and inspirational qualities—grappled with and yet were unable to solve, Obama will settle.

Like, for instance, Palestine and Israel:

Apparently Obama and his team are frustrated by their inability to get Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a deal, and have therefore decided we’ll just impose one.

The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to get to the negotiating table is, in this administration, an iatrogenic disease: Our diplomatic doctors have caused it. The astonishing incompetence of Obama and special envoy George Mitchell has now twice blown up talks””direct talks last year, and proximity talks more recently””by making Israeli construction plans a major world crisis, thereby forcing Palestinian leaders to back away from engagement with the Israelis. So the administration will, in the fall, just do it the simpler way. Why bother with Israelis and Palestinians, in whom the president apparently does not have “growing confidence,” when you can just have your own brilliant team draw up the terms?

[NOTE: See also this.]