President Obama's announcement on European missile defense yesterday fell, in a masterpiece of sickening symbolism to which his administration is absolutely tone-deaf, on the 70th anniversary of Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin's invasion of Poland (which came 16 days after Hitler invaded the country to begin World War II). More detail on the plan came from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, followed by a DoD briefing. The briefing, by General James Cartwright of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained the various missile defense systems being deployed and upgraded. The two technical arguments he makes are that Iran is acquiring a capability to overwhelm the originally planned system by sheer numbers, and that Iran's longer-range systems look to be farther off then previously thought by the American intelligence community.
The technical arguments are not frivolous, though our intel shift is a guess at best. Frivolity came during the Q&A, when a reporter asked about Russian concerns. Gen. Cartwright replied that Russia objected to deployment of omni-directional (360-degree) radar in the Czech Republic, which could not only see Iranian launches but also Russian launches. Second, that Russia feared the missiles (to be based in Poland) could be converted to offensive missiles like the 1980s Pershing II missile system, and rapidly strike Russia without warning.
There is, of course, nothing whatsoever wrong with our desire to be able to peer into Russia and monitor their missile launches. As for the Poles ever consenting to a nuclear first strike being launched at Russia from its soil, as sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say, "Gimme a break!"
Coincidentally, yesterday came an AP report that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on its latest Iran inspection has concluded that Iran already has the ability to make a nuclear bomb, and is on its way to perfecting a missile delivery system to carry a nuclear payload. The conclusion is reportedly contained in a "secret annex" that is being withheld at the behest of Muhammad el-Baradei, the IAEA chief inspector (& undeserving Nobel Peace Prize winner), who has in the past publicly said he sees no reason why third world countries cannot make nuclear weapons if the big powers have them. For its part, the IAEA denies the AP report. Meanwhile, Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu called upon the world to back Israeli self-defense (fat chance).
As for the claim that new intel on Iran's missile program progress was a factor in the cancellation, a WSJ editorial notes that already, last February, the administration began making noises about scrapping the deployment, long before the alleged Iran intel shift. Another WSJ piece adds detail on distress in Eastern Europe. The WSJ editors add a recap of how Team Obama has shafted allies in its first eight months:
The European switcheroo continues Mr. Obama's trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies. His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
Ralph Peters writes that in pressing the reset button with Russia 44 hit the delete key with Eastern Europe. Washington Times pundit Wesley Pruden sums it up even better: "Christmas arrives early" for Putin. National security maven Seth Cropsey sees "incalculable damage" to America's credibility with allies around the globe. According to the Daily Telegraph, the President's decision has Russia's leaders smiling and Eastern European leaders frowning. Der Speigel reports "euphoria in Moscow" and adds that Russia will give little if anything in return. The Economist sees a need for America to reassure allies of its alliance commitment.
Team Obama sees nothing wrong with this picture, and thus Jed Babbin concludes 44 is "slow-rolling" missile defense with no intention of ever deploying promised systems. The NRO editors note that five months ago President Obama, in Prague, praised the courage of the two countries in accepting systems Moscow opposed. Also at NRO, Rich Lowry talked to John Bolton, who sees the decision as "pre-emptive capitulation" to Moscow; JB also noted that Gates was weak on missile defense during his Bush 43 years. A New York Times front-pager sees Obama scrapping Ronald Reagan missile defense vision, too.
If the deal changing old for new missile defense technology plus accelerating deployment is so good, why are the Poles & Czechs unhappy? Presumably, Poles & Czechs would be delighted with a better system sooner. That they are not suggests that the deal is not as Team Obama casts it. Only if there is a secret protocol between America & Russia committing Russia to help stop Iran's nuclear program could this be justified. We should be so lucky.
Bottom Line. The clear inference--unavoidable in this case--is that America buckled to Moscow's campaign to stop missile defense deployment in Western Europe. The administration has unilaterally abrogated a solemn compact negotiated by the prior administration with the Czechs & Poles, whose governments braved strong domestic political pressure, driven by fear of antagonizing Moscow. In place of an ostensibly binding agreement, Eastern Europe now has an eminently revocable "commitment" by the current administration. Russia now has a de facto veto over American actions in Eastern Europe, whose countries have been staunch American allies since being liberated from domination by the former Soviet Union--far more faithful, sending soldiers to fight alongside us in foreign wars while our Western European continental allies kept their troops out of harm's way.
The Czech Republic and Poland were among the most ardent friends of America. They joined the NATO alliance for security in the face of Mother Russia, whose menacing shadow conjures up painful memories, such as the 1939 & 1944-45 rapes of Poland and the 1968 crushing of the Prague Spring. Of such cavalier treatment are alliances endangered. If this is how America treats its most faithful friends in Continental Europe, how will our fair-weather allies regard future American promises?
Comments