« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Time to START Supporting Obama

A broken clock is right twice a day, and even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.  It’s not surprising therefore that even as President Obama and the Soros Administration work feverishly to transform America into the USSA they would eventually stumble upon something that’s deserving of support by patriotic citizens.

The Cold War is over.  Or at least it was.  The fall of the Soviet Union, the greatest totalitarian horror of the twentieth Century came with a raised eyebrow instead of a bang.  Unlike the clean-up after those other failed totalitarian monsters, Mussolini, Hitler and Tojo there were no trials and no crimes against humanity.  Instead the masters of the gulags, the tormentors of innocents, and the destroyers of liberty received pensions and luxury dachas on the Black Sea disappearing into the woodwork along with much of the nation’s gold.  Instead of hanging by his heels from a lamppost Gorbachev started a think tank and began earning astronomical speaking fees from all his friends in the West.

The Cold War was a fifty year-long nightmare.  Yet today some History teachers in America characterize this multi-generational conflict as more extreme competition than a war, thus discounting the tens of thousands who died in Korea and Vietnam and the tens of millions who died in the gulags as if they were players fouled in a rough game.  Having forgotten the lessons of the past, our bellicose neo-cons are now blustering and bullying the best Congress money can buy into refusing to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Yes, the treaty needs to be looked at closely.  Yes, we need rock solid assurances the treaty provides for our ability to maintain and modernize our deterrent force.  However, we need to realize that this treaty is more than just the next round in the nuclear stand-down initiated by President Reagan. This treaty is the next logical step in linking Russia to the West.

Russia has always been conflicted.  Is it a Western nation or an Eastern Empire?  Is it part of the legacy of the West, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the democratic revolutions and evolutions, or are they the true child of the Golden Horde the political descendent of the autocratic Czars?  Is it an honorable member of the human community or is it a ruthless gang of authoritarian Stalin wanabes out to dominate the world?

Today Russia is engaged in massive trade with the West, primarily Europe.  The capitalist cat has been let out of the bag and they would have a hard time putting that toothpaste back in the tube.  Our war in Afghanistan, without the assistance of Russia in allowing us to cross their territory with supplies, would resemble more of a siege than an assault, with us behind the barricades.  The long and winding road from Karachi through the Hindu Kush is a perilously thin life-line the enemy can disrupt or bock anytime it suits their fancy.  Without the alternate Russian access our heroes would be on the Little Big Horn looking for General Crook and Colonel Gibbon. 

I have long asked what our military establishment in Europe was accomplishing besides providing a bail-out for the socialist economies and the opportunity for them to have no meaningful military budgets interfering with their cradle-to-grave nanny states.  Who are we protecting them from: their own people?  If Russia permanently joins the West couldn’t we finally bring our troops home?  Perhaps we could even deploy them to our borders where they could protect us from invasion?

True, Russia may not be the quintessential example of a liberty loving representative republic, but then again neither any longer are we.  True, they may not be Adam Smith’s definition of a capitalist society, but then again neither any longer are we. They are however no longer the Evil Empire.  They are no longer a slave state run by megalomaniacs who have dozens of captive nations enthralled to their fever dream of world domination. 

If we send the new START Treaty the way of the Versailles Treaty we will undercut every Russian who supports democracy and engagement in Moscow.  We will empower every Russian who beats the drums of their age-old national obsession with encirclement.  Just as our indifference cut the legs out from the protestors in Iran after their last bogus elections, our failure to accept the Russian’s hand extended in friendship will ensure a Russian fist raised in defiance.

The last thing we need now is a new Cold War.  The last thing we need is Russia once again fueling every tin pot regime dedicated to American decline.  Imagine if instead of standing with the West in the War on Terror they were: supporting Iran instead of cancelling the delivery of previously purchased weapons systems, supplying arms to the Taliban as we supplied arms to Mujahedeen, and demanding an end to the dollars supremacy. 

On the positive side, the new START Treaty, which limits each side to less than 2,000 nuclear weapons leaves more than enough to get the job done if we ever need to vaporize anyone.  Though it isn’t perfect it also leaves in place the verification side of Reagan’s “Trust and Verify” wisdom.  If we lose this how are we going to retain any trust?  The loss of which will lead us back to the distrust, which was at the base of the fifty year long nuclear arms race.  Looking at this another way, ratification of the treaty is supported by an overwhelming and bipartisan collection of present and former intelligence, military and diplomatic leaders.  They all say the treaty is good for America.

The Neo-cons led us in turning our retribution/revenge raid against Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts into a decade long experiment in nation-building.  They led us into a pre-emptive war in Iraq that has turned into a nation-building mission for an eternal garrison.  They are beating the war drums for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.  We cannot allow them to bait the Russian Bear and reignite the Cold War.  No matter what they or their fellow talking-heads call them these are all globalist distractions keeping our eyes overseas while the Progressives extinguish liberty at home. 

Though I have and I will continue to oppose President Obama when he acts against the interests of the Republic, I’m not afraid to speak out when he does something that will benefit the American people.  This may not be the beginning of unqualified support, but at least it’s a START.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System.  http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

COMMENTS

  • reddog53

    You assert that the Cold War is over and that we are linked to Russia. From where I sit, that doesn’t appear to be going well. “Trust but Verify” can be used to examine their motives and actions in non military aspects as well.

    “The last thing we need is Russia once again fueling every tin pot regime dedicated to American decline.” Absolutely Correct…so we should not be rewarding Russia for its backdoor sabotage of sanctions to Iran, Syria and the like. We should be doing everything possible to cut ties between Venezula, Iran and Russia, as well.

    We capitulated to their demand re: basing ABM in Poland, only to turn around and urge NATO to put a more tenuous system in place later. Make sense? I don’t see it.

    This treaty also allows Russia more leeway in modernizing its remaining weapons that it allows us. Not a good idea.

    This treaty doesn’t need to be rammed through during a lame duck session. The President’s protests that it’s been reviewed enough already ring quite hollow; if it was such a terrific idea, they would have already voted on it, if only to use the ‘win’ to distract us from the rest of the wreckage created this year.

  • JadedByPolitics

    So why do it at all! This is NOT a must, it is NOT a necessity and most importantly it was put together by a radical who has NEVER believed in nor trusted the United States of America’s desire to protect herself and btw, you might think I am talking about Medvedev but I am talking about Obama!

    Oh nice bit of LIES you threw in there about the Neo=Cons, I think perhaps you are tad bit jealous and a whole lot ignorant.

  • ohiohistorian

    be ratified is the loss of the ability to defend ourselves. The mutually assured destruction model of Kissinger et al is for fools. We need to be able to protect OUR country and OUR allies. This treaty does not allow us to do so. We need to put it into the ash-can of history.

  • streiff

    1. Russia has never been conflicted about its focus. Outside the efforts of a handful — two definitely and arguably three or four — Russia has never been oriented on integration with Europe beyond the extent to which it could exert political power. It entered World War I without an industrial base worthy of the name and has managed to make it into the 21st century without developing an entrepreneurial, versus kleptocratic, class. Looking at Russia through the prism of European integration simply ignores Russian history and its geopolitics. Russia doesn’t desire to be a part of Europe or the west but rather a counterweight to them.

    2. Just out of curiosity, what volume of supplies do you think flows through the former Soviet republics to Afghanistan versus that hauled overland? Both supply routes are necessary but the overland route dwarfs the air routes in importance. Even were the air routes vital entering into a disarmament treaty would be a very stupid way to go about obtaining that access.

    3. This is not a continuation of Reagan’s policies. Reagan’s policy was focused on rolling back Soviet influence and bringing the Cold War to a conclusion. He did this. It is profoundly silly to advocate continuing a series of treaties simply because we started the process 30 years ago. The strategic landscape is forever altered. The USSR is gone. Russia is not a threat to us. We don’t have US troops facing Russian troops anywhere in the world.

    4. The idea that the fate of this treaty is inextricably linked to Russian internal politics isn’t borne out by any set of facts.

    5. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy not an argument.

    6. Obviously this is going to be a news flash to you but Russia armed America’s enemies while START I was in force. The idea that START II is going to encourage them to act benignly towards us doesn’t merit serious discussion outside a junior high civics class.

    7. Your Buchananite rant about neo-cons is out of bounds on this site and marks your commentary as not terribly serious. Refrain or I will ban you despite being a Nottoway Senior High grad.

  • bobbymike

    Why do they say, “Russia is our friend…..either sign the treaty or they will 1) build up their nukes to threaten us, 2) support our enemies or 3) try to undercut our foreign policy around the world”

    Does this make sense to anyone? If this is a treaty to reduce weapons amongst friends where are the British and French and why aren’t we worried about these friends?

  • aesthete

    However, I disagree almost entirely with the premise of this post (that Russia is strong enough to either significantly project power outside itself and its client states). Russia’s primary power comes from what it can prevent from happening, not from what it can cause: it’s a basketcase as a nation relying on a decrepit military, and is only getting worse. The START treaty pretends that all of this is untrue.

    Russia has much more to gain from the treaty than we do: it superficially reinforces the idea that Russia is comparable to the US through Cold War comparisons (it is not), enforces a treaty that limits us much more than the Russians, and which allows Russia a chance at some good PR. At the very least, we as a nation should be against ratification as an initial posture, and agree behind the scenes to ratify in exchange for something else (support in Afghanistan, perhaps). I don’t expect such thinking from Obama’s foreign policy, which is largely reactionary and subordinate to domestic demands. You won’t find me agreeing with neo-conservative thought often, and that is the case here, as well. In this instance, both realists and neo-conservatives agree that ratifying the START treaty is simply a bad move for different reasons, and pie-in-the-sky musings about Russia becoming a westernized country aside, there is no reason that we should agree to what is nearly a unilateral disarmament (considering the state of the Russian polity) without some concessions and bargaining.

  • JSobieski

    The treaty doesn’t give us anything that Russia isn’t going to have to have to do without the treaty anyway.

    It sends a bad signal out in the world when the US enters into agreements that don’t benefit the US.

    If Russia were a friend rather than a rival, the signal of “no benefit” treaty to help a friend would be tolerable, but not good.

    Russia however is a rival, not a friend. This agreement is an attempt to make Putin look strong, and what are we getting for it?

    START shouldn’t even be considered unless Russia provides meaningful assistance on the issue of Iran. If you want to use it as a reward in that sense, it wouldn’t be stupid.

    To do it for its own sake is stupid. Acting stupid is bad PR because other nations realize that we are stupid.

    Russia knows that it has nothing to fear from the US. The knew that back when they sent tanks to Georgia.

    Bottom Line: START is just a bunch of diplo-beaurocrats wanting to relieve the glory days of arms control when something was at stake, and are going through the motions of meaningless diplomacy.

    START doesn’t really hurt us directly, but lying to ourselves as a nation convinces the world that we are actually dumber than we actually are.