Thursday, September 17, 2009

Obama Betrays Allies, Appeases Russia

United States President Barak Obama has betrayed American NATO allies in order to appease Russia, an enemy of the U.S. Obama has decided not to station missile defense interceptors in NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic, which would have defended all of Europe from nuclear missile attack by Iran.

The missile defense system planned for these two states was intended to defend against a ballistic missile attack by Iran, which is developing nuclear weapons and missiles with ranges long enough to strike at Europe. Obama's excuse for abandoning missile defense for Europe, an initiative of President George W. Bush, is that Iran is not developing its long-range missile technology as rapidly as had been believed, and is focusing instead on medium-range missiles with a range of only 1,000-1,200 miles. However, Iran shares a border with one NATO member, Turkey, while NATO members in southeastern Europe are also within range of Iran’s missiles. Yet the Obama Administration is not proposing to station the missile defense interceptors to within Iranian range.

Although ostensibly intended to defend against Iran, the missile defense shield would also have defended Eastern Europe against an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russia. Russia had vehemently opposed the missile shield. Russia continues to try to intimidate the former Soviet republics that were once part of its empire, as well as the Eastern European states that were once led by Soviet puppet governments, into siding with Russia against the United States. Despite the statements of the Obama Administration to the contrary – even if true – Obama’s decision appears to give into Russian demands, which reflects his intention to “restart” Russo-American relations, after a deterioration over the last few years. Thus, Russian intimidation seems to have been rewarded by the U.S.

Obama’s reward of Russia is in addition to NATO’s forgiveness of Russia for having invaded Georgia (See my post, NATO Forgives Russia for Georgian Invasion), an act for which Russia was allowed to get away with unpunished. The invasion of Georgia caused many of the former Soviet republics and satellites in Eastern Europe to turn to the U.S. for protection. Obama’s message in appeasing Russia is that maintaining good relations with its Russian enemy supersedes even the American interest in protecting its allies from Russia or Iran, let alone other former Soviet republics and satellites within Russian and Iranian missile range that have been hoping to join NATO for protection. The Obama Administration has indicated that the U.S. will receive nothing in return from Russia for giving into its demands, such as critical Russian cooperation in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The purpose of NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is the mutual defense of its members. The reason for the U.S. to defend its NATO allies is not so much for the sake of the allies, but for the defense of the U.S. Defending NATO allies is not, therefore, some kind of foreign aid, but an integral part of U.S. defense. Indeed, there are tens of thousands of American soldiers in stationed in bases in NATO members, some of which are within Iranian missile range. Thus, the decision by the Obama Administration to eliminate the missile interceptors in Eastern Europe is part of its policy of massive cuts in defense spending, despite its contention that government spending stimulates economic growth.

It is also part of a pattern by the Obama Administration of appeasement of enemies and betrayal of allies out of concern for the U.S. image abroad. See also my posts, Clinton, Obama Appease North Korea and A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. But giving into intimidation from enemies and betraying allies only makes the U.S. appear weak, which encourages enemies and disheartens allies, which does not help American image as much as appearing strong and true.

As an optimist, I prefer to see the good. I have observed in numerous posts the positive things the Obama Administration is doing in the War on Terrorism in order to keep the U.S. safe from terrorists or militants, despite its often counterproductive rhetoric and symbolic gestures. However, the Obama Administration’s wartime policy of weakening American defense in the face of threats is indefensible.

We conservatives must continue to support policies that protect the U.S. from threats from Iran and Russia. A missile defense shield must protect the U.S. and its allies and interests and Iran’s nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile programs must be thwarted. We must oppose the Obama Administration’s liberal policies that betray allies and support enemies, and instead support our allies and oppose our enemies.

1 comment:

The Definitive Word said...

Update: The Obama Administration has since clarified that it will develop a missile defense system focused on the threat of Iran's shorter-range missiles, which could be deployed sooner than the Bush proposal, with part of the mutli-tiered system deployed in Eastern Europe later. Nevertheless, the plan does not address Iran's longer-term missiles, let alone Russia's. The Obama reversal also lets down U.S. allies who risked Russian wrath by agreeing to base the U.S.-based system on their soil, regardless of any future promise to base missile defense there, which appears to have been more to assuage Russia than to save money or deploy the system sooner, as the Obama Administration claims. Even if its claims are true, the appearance of giving into the Russian intimidation is too strong to maintain the confidence of American allies in Eastern Europe that the U.S. will defend them against a resurgent Russia, especially because Obama's new plan is focused further away from Russia.