Posted on 04/03/2015 6:45:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Obama’s new national-security strategy places the highest priority on what he considers the urgent need to move forward with the so-called Prague agenda — derived from his 2009 address calling on the international community to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons. At that time, the call was seen by many as idealistic but generally harmless.
Now, as we approach the sixth anniversary of the speech, it seems dangerously naïve.
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, China’s military rise while pressing territorial claims in the Asia-Pacific region, exploding Islamic extremism across the Middle East and North Africa, and Iran’s growing dominance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen are all raising questions about the credibility of longstanding U.S. security commitments to friends and allies that are grounded in nuclear guarantees. These commitments, as President Kennedy stated more than 50 years ago, required the United States to maintain a nuclear capability “second to none.” If we failed to do so, there would be more nuclear proliferation, less stability, and a greater risk of war.
Since the 2009 Prague address, while the United States has cut its nuclear forces, those of possible adversaries have increased substantially. Under the 2010 New START agreement, despite the false hype that accompanied the treaty-ratification process, only the United States has had to reduce its forces. In fact, Russia has since undertaken a large-scale modernization and expansion program across the board, with new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), new ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and an upgraded bomber force. China, seemingly determined to replace the United Sates as the preeminent power in Asia, is also building up its nuclear arsenal as part of an aggressive effort that emphasizes additional asymmetric capabilities such as cyber and anti-space weapons that are designed to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities. North Korea has reportedly redoubled its efforts to increase its nuclear stockpile and missile force, including deploying a new road-mobile ICBM. And Iran, which possess the largest ballistic-missile force in the Gulf, is now assessed to be only months away from a nuclear weapon once it decides to build it.
But perhaps the most direct challenge to the president’s call for further nuclear reductions of up to one-third of the force allowed under New START is Russia’s violation of the 1987 landmark Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Last year, the administration announced its finding that Moscow has tested a new ground-based cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty. When asked how the administration can advocate for further arms-control negotiations while Russia is violating a standing treaty and is refusing to take, or even discuss, corrective measures, its response is simple: Ronald Reagan negotiated the START Treaty while Russia was constructing the Krasnoyarsk radar in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
But the effort to seek more nuclear cuts and to spin Russian non-compliance by saying “We’re just doing what Reagan did” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The situations, foreign-policy approaches, and negotiating standards of the Reagan and Obama administrations are dramatically different.
President Reagan operated on the principle that the U.S. must negotiate from a position of strength. He recognized the need to block Soviet aggression wherever it occurred and contested Soviet advances by supporting opposition movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and elsewhere with arms and ammunition that took a tremendous toll on the Soviet Union and played no small role in its ultimate collapse. He undertook perhaps the largest offensive nuclear-modernization program in U.S. history to ensure a strong deterrent and established the Strategic Defense Initiative to pursue new technologies to protect the American homeland from a Soviet attack. He insisted that NATO continue with the deployments of Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles to counter the already deployed Soviet SS-20 missiles that threatened to de-couple the United States from the deterrence of threats to Europe.
In the arms-control arena, Reagan was equally tough. When Moscow threatened to pull out of the negotiations if the U.S. went through with INF deployments, he called the Russian bluff. Reagan deployed, and the Soviets walked out of the INF, START, and even Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR) negotiations in an effort to divide the alliance and promote partisan fissures in Western democracies, including the United States. But Reagan stood firm and NATO stood firm, owing to adroit alliance management and confidence that Reagan would not flinch.
In the START negotiations, Reagan insisted on real reductions in Soviet forces and effective verification measures to ensure compliance. “Trust but verify” was the motto — and perhaps also a reflection of his view of General Secretary Gorbachev as a negotiating partner. In Gorbachev, Reagan recognized a man who understood that, to survive, the Soviet Union had to undergo fundamental changes and could no longer afford to maintain its vast nuclear forces.
As for the Krasnoyarsk radar, Reagan insisted it be dismantled. And, before START was signed, Moscow had acknowledged the radar to be a violation of the ABM Treaty and had begun its dismantlement.
The contrast with President Obama in each of these areas couldn’t be starker. In the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, the U.S. has withheld lethal defensive military assistance, fearing that such aid might be seen as “provocative” by Moscow. While Russia has built up its nuclear forces and increased the role of nuclear weapons in its defense doctrine, the U.S. nuclear deterrent has atrophied, hindered by funding delays and policy constraints such as the “no new nuclear capabilities” standard imposed on the Defense and Energy departments.
On missile defense, Russia has substantially increased spending on strategic defenses, while U.S. spending has declined precipitously. Every program designed to protect the American homeland from ballistic-missile attack has been canceled or reduced. The original European third site for ground-based interceptors was canceled, as was the development of the SM3 IIB missile that was to provide a similar capability under the phased adaptive approach. In both cases, the decision was intended as an inducement for Moscow to join in the Prague agenda. In both cases, it failed.
In arms-control talks, the Obama administration seems almost content to negotiate from a position of weakness. Whether with Russia or with Iran, the pattern is the same — U.S. concessions are followed by more concessions without the other side giving up anything of lasting significance.
In this manner, Russia has by some criteria achieved nuclear superiority over the United States and Iran has become a nuclear-weapons threshold state by almost any definition. Both of these outcomes will have profound long-term strategic effects that will undermine U.S. security interests and those of our allies.
Ironically, in the hope of promoting nuclear disarmament, President Obama has taken other actions that undercut the prospects for future arms-control treaties for years to come. Many of the key monitoring provisions that were won in the START and INF negotiations under Reagan were given up in New START. And as for insisting on scrupulous compliance, the Obama administration took years to declare the INF violation, and it has not connected the call for further cuts with the need for Moscow to reverse that violation. If effective verification is abandoned and if there are no consequences for violating existing agreements, why would the Senate consent to ratify new treaties?
President Reagan understood this; President Obama apparently does not.
— Robert Joseph is a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy; he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, 2005–2007. Eric Edelman is a distinguished fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; he was under secretary of defense for policy, 2005–2009.
President Reagan fought America’s Enemies.
Obola the undocumented Moslem, pRes_ _ent by Pelosi’s
fraud and the abdication of EXEMPT Congress
and EXEMPT SCOTUS (treason for ObamaCARE),
WEAPONIZED America’s Enemies and backstabbed
its allies, over and over and over and over and over.
I would compare the Obama Administrations negotiations with Iran to the usual negotiations between Liberal Governors and the State Teachers Unions. Both are on the same side. The only issue is how they can sell it to the public.
Josh Earnest was on Fox this morning and couldn't explain it but admitted it's 50/50 at best.
Footage showed Iranians and militant warriors celebrating in the streets of Tehran.
Not much more needs to be said.
In the 70s leftists slammed Nixon by asking "Would you buy a used car from this man?"
With Obama an apt question would be, "Would you let him buy one for you?"
“President Reagan operated on the principle that the U.S. must negotiate from a position of strength. He recognized the need to block Soviet aggression wherever it occurred and contested Soviet advances by supporting opposition movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and elsewhere with arms and ammunition that took a tremendous toll on the Soviet Union and played no small role in its ultimate collapse.”
I’ve a lot of respect for President Reagan.
Must also say:
1. We don’t live in the 1980s & much has changed since then. Both in the USA and Geo-politically around the globe.
2. Islamists are not the USSR; neither individually, nor collectively, nor in their socio-economic-political makeup.
President Ronald Reagan:
"Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane,
driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology.
They do not fear the United States
for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles
and software programs it produces.
They respect only the firepower of our tanks,
planes and helicopter gunships."
It’s nice to see his photo :-) — and no reasonable person would dispute America’s military superiority.
Though I stand by what I said in the last comment here. Including that Islamists are very different breed to the USSR, all around. They also operate differently and are not country-bound. Guns/military are not a long term solution.
Way I see it, so far we’ve had 2 distinct opportunities to bring down the Iranian Regime. 1) was during Iran-Iraq war; it didn’t happen. 2) was during George W. Bush’s presidency, when he called Iran “Axis of Evil”, but ended up not walking the talk.
That said, in the end, even with the USSR, Reagan didn’t not use “tanks, helicopters or gunship”.
Reagan didn’t not use = didn’t use
That sentence shows what's wrong with the GOPe. They approach El Commandnte Obola as a man who just doesn't understand strategic imperatives, instead of accurately viewing him as the determined America and American hating traitor that he is who does understand those imperatives and is doing his best to destroy this country. The proper way to have written that sentience is as follows: "President Reagan was a patriot who loved America and Americans with all his heart and soul; Obama is a vile, evil traitor who despises America and Americans with all his heart and "soul" and is out to destroy us."
Reagan took the strongest, most confrontational aggression against the Russians that were possible without literally having us directly attack them.
He had 550,000 men in Europe and we were on aggressive posturing, and he conquered Grenada, and he was fighting them under the table in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Our military and Western mercenaries were very busy under Reagan.
For those who want to read more of your Reagan quote.
http://www3.citadel.edu/pao/addresses/reagan.htm
Do you think fighting the Islamists requires the same, or something different?
As you said: “He had 550,000 men in Europe” - “without literally having us directly attack them.” - “aggressive posturing”, “he was fighting them under the table” (Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America)?
You don’t know the difference between a war on our side of the line in Europe with 6.2 million Russian troops and what some experts predicted could be our defeat and loss of Western Europe within only weeks, and almost certain total global, nuclear war, and the destruction of our military and even our nation, and civilization itself, to facing what we face now from Islam?
Reagan fought everywhere he could fight, and he would be fighting Islam, ESPECIALLY since the USSR is no longer there.
Reagan, without the greatest military threat in our history poised for attack and it not even existing anymore, would definitely be turning his attention to Islam.
Democrats are traitors. Clinton gave uranium to the North Koreans if they promised not to build nuclear bombs.
My question to you was not if Reagan would be fighting Islamists or not. I’m sure he would.
My question was if you think we should be fighting the Islamists & the Islamic threat same way we did the USSR.
I don’t understand your question, what do you mean?
How is there anything similar to the USSR and NATO forces in a standoff where the bloodiest battlefield in history would be on our cities and civilization if Russia attacked, and various Arab countries?
There are over 1.5 billion muslims around the world. Not all are Islamists. But Islamists are not confined to a single country or simply Arab countries. They are spread across the world and live in Western countries too. You kill 10 of their leaders, for example, and next you get 20 more.
My point was that indeed a comparison with the USSR situation is not entirely an appropriate one. Hence my question whether the use of military force Only, can be successful long term and will ensure success in dealing with Islam, the Islamic threat and the Islamists.
HOW do we fight Islam, Islamic threat and the Islamists in 2015 and beyond? Do we fight them the same way we did the Soviet (USSR) threat, OR do we employ a (somewhat) different approach? Do we fight the Islamists by Military Force Only?
The above questions are not difficult to understand.
I know the difference between the USSR as it existed (for 75 yrs) up until 1991, and the Islamic threat (over the last 1400 yrs) that exists even now. Otherwise, I wouldn't be asking the above questions.
Instead, in your original post to me (#10) you talked about how Reagan fought the Russians (USSR), and keep wanting to make a point about the USSR, and revert to talking about the Cold War, Korean war, Vietnam War, Grenada...
Based on your posts to me in this thread, I assume the following:
1. You think the USSR was a far greater threat than Islam and the Islamists are today i.e in this decade and beyond.
2. We can defeat the Islamists and Islam same way (using the same approach) we did with the enemy during the Cold War.
I have no idea what you keep trying to say, although you keep posting cryptic little posts over and over.
If you have something to say, would you just spit it out already? Whatever your theories, or whatever it is that you are struggling to say, try to put together a post that will let the rest of us in on it.
Because so far you aren’t making any sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.