Obama video campaign ad promising surrender in Iraq, deep military, missile defense cuts

Not new, but obviously of utmost importance. If you've seen it before and realize the seriousness of it, please move on to another article. If you haven't seen it, please read and pass the url/link to the thread along to any friends or relatives you may have who are actually planning to vote for this guy. Thanks.

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________________

Next, an expert analysis of Obama's proposals...
_____________________________________________________________

Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces
by Robert Maginnis
Posted 04/10/2008 ET

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.

YouTube has an undated 52-second clip [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE October, 2007 -ETL] of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left.

Watch Obama’s message and consider some inconvenient facts about his national security promises.

“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.” No one likes war: especially those who have to do the fighting and dying. Yet, our military leaders make clear that the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq as Obama seeks would be disastrous not only for American interests in the region but for Iraq itself. It would provide a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and Iran because they will be able to claim they defeated America. Further, it could worsen the Iraqi civil war, create an unstable Mideast and further spike oil prices.

“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Anyone who has worked with the military for any length of time knows there is waste, often in weapons systems. Recently, the Government Accountability Office found that 95 major weapons systems -- including the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship -- have exceeded their original budgets. These cost overruns could be the result of waste or mismanagement or, perhaps, the development and fielding of sophisticated new weapons with constantly changing requirements is difficult and inefficient.

The senator should understand there is a difference between waste and defense spending. But does he? There is no reason to think so in any of his speeches or position papers. Obama’s employer, the US Congress, indulges in pork barrel earmarks contributing to wasteful Pentagon spending. Earmarks circumvent merit-based systems to create jobs in favored congressional districts and saddle the military with unwanted -- wasteful -- programs.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Recently, both our sea-based and ground-based missile systems proved to be successful. On Feb 20, the USS Lake Erie armed with an SM-3 missile destroyed a wayward satellite traveling at more than 17,000 MPH more than 100 miles high. In September, 2007, our ground-based midcourse defense system killed a dummy missile over the Pacific using an interceptor stationed in Alaska. The US Bureau of Arms Control warns, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”

“I will not weaponize space.” America’s current policy is not to weaponize space. However, it’s important for policy makers to recognize the US’s dependence on space. Our banking, communications and navigation systems almost entirely depend on satellites. Space lines of communication are as essential for commerce today as sea lines of communication were two centuries ago. Does Obama mean he wouldn’t provide defensive systems for our satellites? Apparently so.

Surrendering space to rogue nations and pirates places our economy and military at risk. Anti-satellite weaponry will proliferate and must be countered.

“I will slow our development of future combat systems.” Our combat systems are becoming ancient. Our air force is flying aircraft which are based on 1940s and 1950s technology and our army is driving 1960s and 1970s vintage vehicles. Older equipment is expensive, time consuming to maintain and potentially dangerous.

The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the first full-spectrum modernization effort in nearly 40 years. It will replace Cold War-era relics with “full-spectrum” operations capable modular systems designed to operate in complex terrain. It can also be adapted to civil support, such as disaster relief.

Failing to develop future combat systems puts American warriors at risk and unnecessarily jeopardizes our security.

"...and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.” Congress created the QDR as an every four-year analysis intended to balance defense strategy and programs with resources.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, an “independent defense priorities board” in its own right, published its analysis of the most recent QDR. It lauded the Bush administration for sustained involvement of senior officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and creating a database to track implementation of initiatives. The GAO faulted Congress for failing to clarify its expectations regarding what budget information the Pentagon should provide.

To make matters worse, Congress’ 2008 Defense Authorization Act created two new and redundant every four year analyses. One is an independent military assessment of roles and missions and the other identifies core mission areas, competenceis and capabilities.

Obama is right to criticize the QDR because it has become an exercise in fantasy but his Congressional colleagues keep piling on new requirements. The senator can help the Pentagon by scaling back on the analyses requirements. Just tell the military what the country can afford and then have the services explain what they will buy and how much risk we will have to accept.

“To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” That’s dangerous. Our present nuclear arsenal will atrophy if it isn’t modernized. According to the head of the military’s Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, our warheads are aging and weren’t designed to last forever, making him nervous. “I liken it to approaching a cliff -- and I don’t know how far away from that cliff I am,” Chilton said.

Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the US’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said we have a new program that will potentially reduce the number of warheads and make them safer. It’s called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and “contemplates designing new components for previously tested nuclear packages.” The RRW would create, Brooks said, a "reduced chance we will ever need to resort to nuclear testing" again.

“I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material...” Nations capable of producing nuclear weapons produce fissile material for their atomic arsenals. Many of these same nations produce fissile material to fuel their nuclear power plants which light millions of homes and are a cheap, clean energy source in a world concerned about hydrocarbon pollution.

Efforts to control the production of fissile material date back to the 1946 Baruch Plan but that attempt was abandoned during the Cold War. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush announced that the US no longer produced fissile material for nuclear weapons and in 1993 President Bill Clinton called for Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations. While this is a worthy goal it is not achievable in an energy hungry world.

“...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert...”

The US nuclear forces are not on “hair trigger” alert. Only a portion of America’s deployed nuclear forces maintain a ready alert status.

Besides, our policy does not rely on a “launch on warning” strategy. Rather, our forces are postured to provide flexibility by raising the readiness status of the force and by putting weapons systems on alert when necessary.

“...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.” Our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent against enemies with similar systems. Deep cuts without verifiable reciprocal cuts would be dangerous. However, we are making progress via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which proposes a reduction of the overall threathold of up to 1,500 warheads. Russia has approximately 4,162 and the US has 5,866 strategic warheads and both nations possess thousands of tactical weapons and reserve stocks as well.

Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
____________________________________________________________

Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
Reuters: Aug 17, 2007

CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.

"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.

Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.

The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.

Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
____________________________________________________________

From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764
____________________________________________________________

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
____________________________________________________________

From Investors Business Daily:
September 8, 2008
"On Monday, Russia accepted Chavez's invitation for a first-ever joint naval exercise with Venezuela."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305766737761086
____________________________________________________________

From The Associated Press:
Russian navy ships head to maneuvers in Venezuela
September 22, 2008
MOSCOW - A Russian navy squadron set off for Venezuela Monday, an official said, in a deployment of Russian military power to the Western Hemisphere unprecedented since the Cold War.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_venezuela
____________________________________________________________

Venezuela Set to Develop Nuclear Power With Russia
September 29, 2008
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy — a move likely to raise U.S. concerns over increasingly close cooperation between Caracas and Moscow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429441,00.html
____________________________________________________________

Biden predicts early crisis will test Obama
October 20, 2008

From CNN Political Producer Alexander Marquardt Biden predicts Obama will have to make some unpopular decisions in his first six months in office. Biden predicts Obama will have to make some unpopular decisions in his first six months in office.

SEATTLE (CNN) — Joe Biden told Democratic fundraisers Sunday night that there is no doubt in his mind a crisis will occur during Barack Obama's first six months in office that will test his mettle and force him to make unpopular decisions.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," said Biden to a roomful of donors. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America."

"Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said," Biden continued. "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/biden-predicts-early-crisis-will-test-obama/
____________________________________________________________

The closest the world has come to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of the United States. U.S. armed forces were at their highest state of readiness. Soviet field commanders in Cuba were authorized to use tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by the U.S. The fate of millions literally hinged upon the ability of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, to reach a compromise.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/
____________________________________________________________

Russian nuclear bombers in Cuba?
July 23, 2008

The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.

The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.

The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily:

“While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.”

The quote hasn’t been independently confirmed, but the Russian Defense Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.

The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba - which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast - would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.

http://www.siberianlight.net/2008/07/23/russian-nuclear-bombers-cuba/
____________________________________________________________

"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...
"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'
http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html

__________________________________________________________________________

The local paper, which is very liberal, but has an editorial page editor that allows ordinary people like me to have an Op-ed published once and a while, if there is a local taking the other side of the issue. This was my effort on Obama, but it looks like no one on the other side could think of anything nice to say.

Joe Biden said in Seattle, “Mark my words. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy….. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” Vladimir Lenin said, “Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.”

Under Kennedy we barely avoided nuclear war, and he mandated our military commitment to Vietnam. In those cases adversaries reverenced their homelands, and present positions of power enough to mitigate probing when facing resolute actions. In this case, the Wahhabi/ Salafi heresy rejects traditional Muslim allegiances to family, tribe, ethnicity, and country, embracing murder and desolation for both means and ends. In this case, the Twelfth Imam Shiite heresy, now dominating Iran religious/ political life, envisions utter chaos preceding the imam arrival. The Caliphate sought and Twelfth Imam arrival both postulate catastrophic regional and worldwide devastation. Cherishing no particular human or physical remnant leaves rogue states and terrorists immune to diplomacy, containment or retaliation.

Abominable weapons technologies and inventories, not bayonets, provide capabilities now permeating global locations. F.B.I. Director Mueller reports enough highly enriched uranium worldwide to arm thousands of nuclear weapons, and to fuel a seller’s market in the so-called atomic bazaar.

Chemical and biological agents can emanate from dual-use facilities and cottage industries. The biological pathogens, which decimated Europe, remain ready for exploitation one step away in our food chain. Open societies provide excellent delivery means where 2,000 to 20,000 people work and travel within closed HVAC systems. Complex fresh water and food distribution systems invite chemical and biological intrusions.

Terrorist converts include engineers and scientists easily accommodating academic excellence within cancerous philosophies appended to Muslim faith. They share deviate human characteristics similar to those enabling Himmler to officer S.S. units with accomplished professionals for the Holocaust, and slaughter of Slavs, Jews and Soviets during Barbarossa.

For this coming test, Obama’s foreign policy centerpiece involves commitment to talks without preconditions. Carter’s reasoning with the Ayatollah Khomeini, as men of faith, concerning the Iranian hostages illustrated this approach. Adversarial countries, now unconstrained by Western proprieties, invest traditional diplomacy with Oriental/Asian principles threatening or executing violence.

Adversaries like Assad, Ahmadinejad, and terrorist surrogates would manage Obama’s open negotiations into submissive posturing; compromising positions allies would otherwise support. Patient dissembling would exact concessions in exchange for photo ops and sound bites coordinated to U.S. news and election cycles.

Unless offered compelling enticements, or confronting unanswerable force, their best strategy remains endless mendacity and violence, while we debate national interests into ever-narrower parameters making allied support ever more conditional. The last Iranian nuclear weapons NIE initiated such self-destructive debate drawing Persian Gulf countries closer to Iran.

Effective war diplomacy against emerging threats will be methodical, covert, multi-faceted, and predictably lethal. Opponents we face initiate and respond to diplomacy residing on a continuum including war. Talks, conferences and economic measures serve as war without bloodshed; war and terrorism serve as diplomacy with bloodshed. Intelligence, propaganda, and espionage invigorate all options.

We cannot afford administrations finding war a bewildering, tragic, accidental consequence of shattering attacks, when failed diplomacy descends into appeasement. A world unrepentant before Western diplomatic nuances requires leaders who work problems in Oriental/Asian terms to retain allies against the intimidation, and bestiality of terrorism. If force must discredit an opponent, deliberate battle must first be prepared by measures consistently cultivating internal and international isolation.

John McCain understands primary homeland defense against global terrorism demands a strong forward-deployed military. His war diplomacy promotes counterinsurgency tactics enabling countries to defeat terrorists, promote moderate constituencies, and create the social and economic infrastructure extinguishing chaos.

Sustaining initiatives of African, Oriental and Asian countries brings Global War On Terror (GWOT) victory by frustrating plans, breaking alliances and fracturing organizations of Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. Severing terror organizations into ever less effective units, that possess neither cities, nor countries nor armies, means bin Laden and successor sociopaths forfeit credibility and power. These itinerant prophets then live out unnaturally shortened lives as pariahs, and no longer attract acolytes embracing self-immolation. Rogue states find an effective weapon for regional domination impotent, and their power jeopardized.

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.