Missile Defense and International Politics
September 17, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Today, MO Congressmen Todd Akin – R (and I’m sure others) released a statement concerning a change the President is making in foreign policy arena:
“The President’s decision to back away from our plans to put missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic effectively abandons two of our allies who had worked hard and taken political risks for the sake of European and American security. The Administration has sent a clear signal to our central and eastern European allies that the United States, under this President, cannot be counted on to stand by our commitments.”
“With the Iranian regime continuing its aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons and Russia’s commitment to reassert its regional hegemony, the United States must strengthen, not weaken, their commitment to the safety of our friends and allies around the world. The technology changes proposed may be of some merit, but the Administration needs to fully brief the Congress and our NATO allies before proceeding with this dramatic change in course.”
“Given our desire and need for a stronger commitment by our NATO allies in Afghanistan, President Obama’s decision to abandon our Polish and Czech allies will only make that effort all the more difficult.”
Not to attack Mr. Akin directly on this view as he is ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, the rhetoric is simplifying a more complex issue. As Russia tries to reassert itself within the region and the question of giving missile defense technology to Poland and Chech is tricky. These countries are seen by Russia as inside their historical sphere of influence (Eastern Bloc).
Additionally, Russia has used these countries as a man made border to reduce any potential opponents ability to invade. They do this and are concerned by it because they have no real natural borders such as the US with two oceans.
So while it’s true that this move strengthens Russia, what we need right now is Russia’s help to control Iran from building nukes. When the UN passes embargo’s against Iran, but Russia and others continue to trade with Iran, we basically haven’t done anything that is likely to deter Iran from their current stated goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Realistically and by all known analysis, Iran isn’t anywhere near being able to build an actual weapon. They are close to having the fuel required, but the technology to actually make that fuel into a weapon is very complex and not something with which they have experience.
Additionally, even if Iran could build a nuclear war head that could result in a very large explosion, they still don’t have good missile technology, circuits capable of withstanding the radiation, and many other technologies required to make all of it useful.
Having said that, Iran is a threat and as a proactive supporter of terrorism, remains a country we have to be cognizant of.
So my personal opinion is that our fear of Iran right this second might be overblown which would make this decision unnecessary, but I also know what I don’t know… like whether Russia has given us assurances of help with Iran, whether the existing publicly available analysis is correct, or any number of other factors which should be used in the calculus for deciding on any given action.
Either way, taking knowns & the unknowns together, the decision itself isn’t as easy as the “abandoning our allies” rhetoric would make one think.
Categories: Foreign Policy, International, Politics
| 
Tags: Critical Thinking, Foreign Policy, Game Theory, International, Iran, Logic, missile defense, Obama Administration, obama. foreign policy, Poland, Politics, Russia
|
Leave a reply
“As Russia tries to reassert itself within the region”
What it did last in the Eastern European region was to enslave tens of millions of people. If it is now to be allowed to “re-” anything it is to re-enslave, because enslaving was what it did last in the region.
Let us not forget that Putin is a former KGB officer and thus a card carrying member of the same Communist Party that killed many more innocent civilians under the “historical sphere of influence” that you are so willing to grant them than even the Nazis ever did in theirs.
Sorry, but this whole line of thinking that you are regurgitating is straight out of the Soviet playbook that was used as propaganda for decades and fooled many people in this country and around the world into supporting their “right” to commit their own holocausts and enslave tens of millions of people within their “man made border” in the name of defense. Posting this is not so different than it would be to post old Nazi propaganda as a way of justifying appeasement of a new neo-Nazi regime in Germany “reasserting” its search for living space. I realize that it was done out of ignorance, but you really should do your homework before posting this kind of regurgitation of old propaganda on the internet.
You do understand that this betrayal of Obama’s own promises to the Poles was released at the time of their mourning the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the twin totalitarian mass murder regimes: Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. You understand the symbolism of the timing of the release and how it points clearly to the path ahead, right? I’m sure the point is not lost on many, many people around the globe who do not have the luxury of this historically ignorant complacency that we will no doubt continue to indulge in here while we can, until we can’t.
I’m only 42 and yet I already have to witness complete amnesia regarding history that happened practically yesterday. We are certainly doomed to repeat it. Since our utter stupidity and foolishness this time is in the context of nuclear proliferation, I don’t know that we will survive it.
I’m not sure where to start, but let’s go with
a) It wasn’t Obama’s promise, it was Bush’s – policies do change with elections, even if I hate it
b) I wouldn’t consider this appeasement necessarily, since we still plan to help the Poles with their defense and missile defense wouldn’t be much of a deterrence to any Russian aggression to re-enslave the Poles. It has no use against a standard invasion. It honestly (according to CBO reports) protects us more than the Poles as by stationing the MD system there allows us the opportunity to destroy missiles as they launch instead of when they re-enter.
c) I did hear the date thing… just wow. I don’t believe we would do that on purpose for a number of reasons, so I tend to believe that was just a very stupid mistake. Take what we know about Obama’s advisors and I think it would be fair to say they are unlikely to even know that Poland was invaded, much less when & by whom.
d) I don’t mind if the US sold tons of this stuff to all our allies in Europe, but I’m honestly tired of propping up other county’s by taking the burden of their defense. It’s time to force France, Germany, South Korea, and the rest to stand on their own. Those stupid spending charts that show we spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined (or whatever) – that’s because we’re actively defending that many countries.
Yes, I’m aware of what that does get us – which is a say in the region – but while the world tries to tell us to become more socialized, while their ability to spend money on social issues is because the US subsidizes their national defense and their medical research…. I’m just tired of it. I know that’s a separate point outside of the piece, just saying.