“Anti-Reaganesque”: Bolton rips Obama’s missile shield offer to Russia
posted at 3:10 pm on March 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via Closing Velocity, reliably tender red meat from the ‘Stache. On one side of the debate: Charles Krauthammer and Ace, wondering why Obama would tease Russia with cancellation of the European missile shield in return for help with Iran when everyone knows he’s inclined to cancel the shield anyway. The offer was bound to fail and U.S. prestige bound to suffer as a result. On the other side: German media, enthralled at how The One has changed the moral calculus or something.
Obama’s plan kills two birds with one stone, too. It offers the US a chance to back out of a plan with questionable applicability and technological feasibility while at the same time forcing Russia out of the position of the aggrieved. But Obama’s tactical maneuvering is aggressively defensive; it tacitly forces Russia to show the world whether it is willing to give up extensive trade and lucrative arms and technology deals with Iran in order to help calm growing fears about Iran’s developing a nuclear bomb.
Do either Putin or Medvedev give a wet rip whether the world perceives them as “aggrieved” or indifferent to the Iranian nuclear threat? This reads like a parody of internationalist “consensus-building”: Obama’s offer has, it seems, reshaped the consensus so that Russia is now seen as the problem partner, not those cowboys in Washington. That it hasn’t done anything to reshape Iran’s nuclear capacity is, evidently, of secondary concern.
Then again, it wouldn’t matter even if the offer was accepted, according to Global Security:
Globalsecurity.org’s John Pike see an entirely different shadow game at play. “Russia has neither the ability nor the interest to pressurize Iran into giving up its nuclear weapons program. It is one way the Americans can ‘engage’ the Russians, so as to not appear to be a Bush rootin’ tootin’ cowboy. But it is no more than a means to give diplomats something to talk about,” he tells Danger Room. “It is a way of putting the ball back into their court, so few months down the road we can say that we gave them the chance, [and] it is not our fault that we are forced to deploy BMD [ballisitc missile defense] components in central Europe.”
All of this is premised on the large assumption that The One intends to go ahead with the missile shield, which is highly uncertain. If he does intend to, then the German spin makes sense: The offer becomes a way of making it look as though Russia’s forced his hand by refusing to help with Iran. If he doesn’t intend to — and it sure sounds like he doesn’t given his comments yesterday about “rebooting” our relationship with Moscow — then what’s the point of asking Russia for help when he knows they can’t get Iran to give up its nukes even if they want to? Either he’s so desperate for a Plan B that he’s willing to try a Hail Mary (not impossible given Hillary’s dim expectations for negotiations with Iran) or he’s so eager for any pretext to cancel the missile shield that he’s willing to accept even something as feeble and futile as a Russian promise to “pressure” Iran in exchange. I know which way I’m betting.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Re: the Czech radar looking into Russia.
The X-Band radar planned for the Czech Republic is not a traditional air defense radar that spots bombers loitering at 35,000 feet.
It is a precise target discriminator pointed into space that will guide the interceptors to the actual warhead after the threat missile discharges its payload.
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I only hope the first inter continental nuclear missle is aimed at congress while they are in session, second would be Pelosi’s San Francisco, they couldn’t call on the military becaise SF doesn’t need them. Scary senario but don’t rule it out.
concernedsenior on March 4, 2009 at 5:25 PM
“I feel comfortable with Israel having 200 warheads because I know it would only use them in what is called the “Samson Option”.
But I am filled with dread at the thought of Iran having a single warhead, because of its incindiary rhetoric, links to terrorist organizations, and its leader’s embrace of a particularly fanatical strain of Islam (the 13th Imam eschatology).
If a man keeps saying he’s going to try to kill you, at what point do you take him seriously, ernesto? After you are dead?”
Just to lighten things up a little:
Nicole Kidman said the above almost exactly in
THE PEACEMAKER. Surprisingly good movie that was ahead of it’s time or rather right on time : )
Clooney before he turned into a schmuck, Islam is the bad guy trying to hit us with ONE NUKE. Very plausible and very good. If you have not seen it I reccommend it.
America1st on March 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Well thats quite the interesting tid-bit, and im sure theres alot more of these intricacies that will go into negotiations down the road…i suppose my overarching point here is that theres more to this than “Iran is evil, therefor we need missiles to defend against it.”
There’s real negotiations that can and should go on, and in my view the missiles should be on the table…if for nothing more than coaxing Russia out of her cave. And besides, just because they’re on the table doesnt mean they have to go for sure. If anything we need to feel out where Russia’s focus and priority is here. Is is sphere of influence related? Economic positioning? Good old fashioned counterbalance strategy? Where can we drive Iran as a wedge?
We need as many potential carrots as we can get with Russia, as we dont really have all that much leverage on them. We also need to feel out other regional players. Countries like India, who, as Robert Kaplan explained in his latest Foreign Affairs piece, cooperate with Iran on port building, naval activities, and more.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM
this is why liberals wanted bolton out..
The liberals do NOT want anyone to attempt to DEFEND the USA (you know like their oath of office states)..
So of course now the liberals will attempt to discredit him too anything to make the usa look bad so they can help the enemies of the USA..
these people (liberals are EVIL)
period..
its comming time to get out the cans of RAID and clean up the cockroaches in washington
jcila on March 4, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Are you going to answer me, ernesto?
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Depends on the country. I would argue that it is convenient for failed regimes to paint our government and interests in an ideological shade…places like Iran and Venezuela do that. However, Columbia might not buy into the same “Empire America” rhetoric.
That being said, I would consider any nation basing their strategies on Bush’s suppposed ideology as having not only viewed us unfairly, but having screwed themselves royally on top of it.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Mr.Walrus is right as usual. So is Dr.K.
Obama – a disgraceful piece of shit.
nagee76 on March 4, 2009 at 7:25 PM
mikeyboss on March 4, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Mmmmm, smell that.
Let’s take another whiff:
Son.
You’re really gonna have to learn how to construct a logical argument, rather than dismiss your opponent(s) with meaningless, conclusive labels.
Now let me correct you.
Assuming you are being dismissive of the doctrine of pre-emption, it’s really as simple as this:
* Your country’s national security interest is to protect and defend its citizens and allies from any and all threats (in the case of allies, the order of decisions moves from threats to your allies that will in turn threaten you, to threats to your allies that will require you to assist in their defense as per treaty obligations).
* Defending your country’s national security interests, and the national security interests of its allies, includes a number of areas/subjects, not just naked military threats. However, the non-military items may quickly escalate to require a military response (e.g., foreign hackers that attempt to infiltrate defense networks, where the best response is to remove the threat with covert special ops teams). Let that one sink in too.
* If an aggressor is determined to take actions that clearly link to outcomes that suggest the national security of your own country, or the countries to which you are voluntarily bound by treaty obligations, history is replete with examples where prevention – pre-emption – at the outset would have saved literally millions of lives.
* Therefore you listen to the lessons of history and act as early as possible once the threats begin to materialize.
In Iran’s case, the threat materialized the moment that Ahmadinejad and his government did the following three things, at the same time:
1. Support terrorist proxies which fight against an ally to which we have strong treaty obligations – Israel (HAMAS, Hezbollah)
2. Buy, build, and develop nuclear weapons manufacturing and deployment infrastructure (ballistic missiles from internal designs, purchased 1960′s era Russian SLBMs, and purchased North Korean IRBMs; centrifuges; yellowcake; and purchased warhead designs from Khan’s nuclear bazaar)
3. Consistently talk to both internal Iranian and external audiences about “annihilating” Israel.
So.
You say you don’t like “Bush’s suppposed ideology”, whatever that means.
But if one day a man who has several guns in his house, shows them off to others, and tells anyone who listens to him that one day, when he gets the chance, he’s going to kill you and your family…do you just wait for him to do it?
If you don’t wait, and you don’t run (because nations can’t just “leave” and go somewhere else), then your responses are limited to pre-emptive ones.
And if that is what you will do, then yes, you have chosen to follow one of GWB’s strongest national security doctrines.
It’s always different if you have skin in the game, son.
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM
***
John Bolton did a good job defending U.S. interests at the U.N. He would be a lot better Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton is.
***
Mao said it well, “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun!” Or from a TBM or ICBM with a nuke (nukes?) on it. Real HARD POWER is the only thing that counts in the “calculus of war”. Soft Power (and soft headed leaders) are given the derision they deserve by realists.
***
Remember what Machiavelli said in his classic 16 th. century classic The Prince. “IT IS BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN TO BE LOVED.”
***
President Obama is feeling the love. Benjamin Netanyahu has a life and death decision (for Israel) coming soon. Iran is like Nazi Germany–what the people think doesn’t matter. The Mullahs will bring on Armegeddon as soon as they have it ready. You can’t deter a crazy person or a crazy religion.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on March 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Wish they would have spent more time discrediting this outrageous $900 million to Palestinians who mostly hate our guts and want Israel destroyed. Americans get nothing out of it except a good a laugh at by Hamas for being such suckers.
Politicians like Hillary & Obama are just uselessly trying to increase their stature in the area with lots of our money. Theirs is the politics of real short-change.
Chessplayer on March 4, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Monkeys should not be given loaded machine guns and mullahs must not be allowed to play with nukes.
profitsbeard on March 4, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Impeccable analysis …I seam to notice the sound of crickets in the background….
jerrytbg on March 4, 2009 at 8:45 PM
seem…
jerrytbg on March 4, 2009 at 8:45 PM
We are looking at many states going under Russian and Chinese protection thanks to the novice at the wheel.
History is gong to judge this time in our history very poorly.
jukin on March 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Aside from the fact that preemption has that nasty side effect of false positives (Iraq), that was quite a good write-up. And while I was specifically referring to Bush’s supposed ideology as the straw man neoconservative imperial hegemon, it was well worth your effort. The comment I was replying to:
had to do with how other nations viewed america when assessing its overall position. i was answering that some nations made assumptions on american interests as if we were serving imperial purposes. they got on TV and railed against the American Great Satan or Great Bad Gringo. they made sure they spent all that wonderful oil money on “helping the people” unlike the great satan who only destroys. when the prices came down, they suffered. thats what i meant by
i get what you mean though. its not like i dont know a hawkish american foreign policy when i see one. preemption is a doctrine that has its detractors. some for good reasons, others for bad.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM
I am comfortable with Israel having any number of warheads because of their history restraint.
Monkeys with loaded machine guns are just funny. Mullahs with flintlocks are freaking dangerous.
darktood on March 4, 2009 at 9:21 PM
ernesto, I refer to my previous discussion on national security interests.
A country (the USA or any other) does not, nor should not, ever act on the basis of what other countries may think it may be doing. Actions matter. Nothing else matters.
We act in our own national security interests, period. If we choose to enter into treaties with other countries, we should do so because the terms of the treaty are aligned with our own national security interests. No other reason.
So on that basis, I don’t give a wet rip (yes, I love that phrase, great visual, AP) about whether other, lesser countries accuse the US of acting “imperial”. Our history, both recent and long term, practically obliterates any such argument. As a nation, we have never acted in the mold of an imperial power; when we did come into possessions outside of CONUS, we either bought them (Alaskan Purchase) or else we eventually allowed them to become independent if they requested it. Compare and contrast with the behavior of both Britain and France through much of the past 300 years.
And yes, certainly we make mistakes. I disagree with you regarding your “false positive” comment on applying the doctrine of pre-emption to Iraq. Mistakes made there by the US fall into three basic categories:
* Not putting enough boots on the ground from the beginning.
Now, consider that Bush 43 inherited an army that his predecessor had cut from 18 standing divisions to 10, and who had slashed out essential logistics functions to private contractors while starving its budget for replacement equipment (you may have heard the phrase “can birds” used by USAF personnel, for example; these were planes that were cannibalized for spare parts when none were being purchased by the DOD due to budget constraints).
* Misreading the scope and duration of the commitment required to be made by the DOD and State once Saddam and the Ba’athists were overthrown.
Bush 43 bears ultimate responsibility for this one, as he failed to handle Bremner and State’s rush to instantly turn things over to Iraqis who had no idea of what they were getting into.
* And finally, the President failed to vigorously defend his actions directly to the public at large (allowing the media to set a hostile tone).
Again, the buck stops with Bush here.
All those things being said, though, you would have to do some research into understanding what US national security interests are in that region (and researching past what has been said in the press, for that matter). Iraq is the nexus of three intersections: geographical placement in the middle east generally; ideological mixing point of Sunni vs Shia Islam; and the geographical center of the largest sources of crude oil currently being tapped – which, as the price of crude oil directly affects the US economy, makes stability of the middle eastern oil supply a very high national security issue.
So do I give three sh*ts as to whether some wanker in another country thinks the US is the “Great Satan” or some such label? Guess.
Actions, son. Not words.
And don’t forget to study the logistics behind the actions, and what the implications of those actions are on the logistics of things.
There’s hope for you yet.
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Yeah, I’m sure a guy would look very fierce biting big chunks out of the carpet because he is taking one up the butt big time. “Aggressively defensive.” This sounds like something off of the Onion.
smellthecoffee on March 5, 2009 at 12:09 AM
smellthecoffee
Gotta love a colorful analogy!
SKYFOX on March 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM
+100 Great posts!
becki51758 on March 5, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Thanks, becki. Hope you are having a good morning.
-Wanderlust
Wanderlust on March 5, 2009 at 8:03 AM
I agree!
ladyingray on March 5, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Why? The Doctrine of Preemption dictated that the fast materializing threat of Saddam’s WMD be dealt with by erasing said threat. However, up the further review that has become our year in year out misadventure, there turned out to be no fast materializing threat. Now im sure one could make the case that it was a slow, potentially materializing threat…one that was by no means guaranteed to appear. Id consider that a false positive, entirely outside the actual conduct of the war.
ernesto on March 5, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Assuming you do not have access to top secret intel materials, ernesto, I’d suggest you read what Ion Mihai Pacepa has written on the subject of the “missing” WMD’s. He might be in a position to comment on the topic better than either you or me.
Wanderlust on March 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2