Big Time at the Center For Security Policy last night:     Adult leadership, indeed.  In a sane and just world (and if he’d ever had any inclination to run), Dick Cheney would be president of the United States today……

However, Russia reversed itself last week, calling further sanctions “unproductive” — or more accurately, never reversed its earlier position on sanctions on Iran.

Smart power is knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Royal Doofus draws a full house thanks to Bush. He trades down for a low set and started counting his money at the table thinking the Ruskies were handing him his straight card and got flushed by Putin’s joker.

This cat can’t do anything right.

– but look at the other portion you neglected to include in your indictment of me …
HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM

I should have made my post a bit clearer because it surely was not meant as an indictment of you.
I was taking issue with Hillary’s claim that this has nothing to do with Russia.
That is just unbelievable on it’s face.

I strayed from your topic and should have noted that a little better.

Your point about Obama (in conjunction with Gates) has installed a system that may better fit our needs and has not flip flopped in doing so is on and I agree.

I just believe that Obama makes decisions based more on the politics than defensive strategy which shot down a golden opportunity for intelligence gathering and leverage against Russia combined with trying to score points with the left by pushing the “scrape Bush era missile defense”.

I understand where you are coming from,probably could have articulated that better,and appreciate the discussion.

Baxter Greene on October 21, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Dude – when I include quotes – I try to do it in context. This sometimes means posting portions of a quote that I don’t agree with. You quoted the portion of the Hillary response that I don’t agree with – but look at the other portion you neglected to include in your indictment of me …

She said the change proposed by Obama will deploy missile defense sooner – a “stronger and smarter approach.” She made the comments during a speech at the Brookings Institution, previewing next week’s session of the U.N. General Assembly….

This is the case I’m making here – first, it’s not a flip flop (you agree with me there). Second – we may well have better missile defense shield deployed sooner in Europe than the old plan Bush proposed. Apparently you don’t agree with that and it’s cool. I’ll agree – it would be a better system if it included a lot of other things that the Obama administration has cut out of the budget – but I’m not comparing it to what it **COULD** be.

I’m comparing it to the plan that Bush had – the plan everyone was prepared to go with.

Gates says this new system is BETTER.

I now think we have the evidence to believe him on that.

Update: Polish newspapers report that Biden offered to build a US Army base in Poland as a security guarantee. Not sure if that was in place of missile interceptors, or in addition to them.

Imperialistic warmongers.

Don’t see the Noam Chomsky liberals liking this at all.

So if it is true about building the base,why is it okay to send troops to Poland but not to Afghanistan where we are trying to win a war.

Toby Gati, a senior adviser on Russia and Eurasia in the Clinton White House, said that the outcome of the visit was favorable for the Poles.

“The Poles are going to do just fine under the new missile defense plans,” she said. “They were smart not to make a fuss and fight the Obama administration, but instead to try to figure out ways to enhance their security with the ‘new guys in charge.’”

The Kremlin, meanwhile, may end up having “buyer’s remorse,” she said.

“Yes, they got rid of the system Bush put forward, which they no doubt consider a political victory, but from the point of view of a U.S. ‘presence’ and a possible threat to Russia, as the pieces of the system are integrated, this system may be of much greater concern,” Mrs. Gati said. “Unless, of course, we and the Russians do eventually cooperate on missile defense.”

Thuggish? Spiteful about Russia backtracking on Iran? And the Poles better not get to comfortable either because if Russia does come to the table, the Poles are out in the cold again.

Where is the money for this program coming from?

He cancelled the money before, when it could have more readily been retasked to the SM3 idea, speeding up both development and deployment…

Now, to deploy, he needs to either pull this money from another budgeted item, or go back to Congress for more money…

Soooo…. I think Obama really wanted to cancel this… but covered himself with a Vaporwear idea (SM3s) which Gates is now having to make real, because of Public pressure from both our Allies, and the American Public.

Ifn I remember correctly, the SM3 takes midcourse corrections from an Aegis Radar system… and they were working on an X band land based system… but without those systems any land based SM3 is worthless….

Sooo… unless we suddenly see a new contract to Raytheon for Land Based X Ray or Aegis Radar systems??? Which I know Israel was working on, but I don’t think we were… this idea is no where near ready for Prime time… let alone deployment.

Not that the Bush plan was flawed – but it was three years old – and technology advances an order of magnitude in that amount of time.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Well said and I agree.

But if Obama continues these defense budget cuts,there will be no “technological advances” to speak of very soon.

I wish I could believe that Obama switched this system out to “improve” our National Defense.

The fact that Gates has signed on tells me it will work.

But it stinks to me of putting in a cheaper system,without the intelligence gathering capabilities (that anger Russia)to gain political favor and help from Russia on the UN security council.

marybel on October 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM

from your link:

We know that America has the technological expertise and financial resources to protect and defend itself. The question is whether America will have the strategic vision and the determination to do everything it can to deploy a layered, robust missile-defense system.

As Honda stated before and I agree with 100%:

I really believe in missile defense – you aren’t going to stop these rogue nations from getting nukes – you can only make nukes “obsolete”. We have to stay ahead with missile defense. Shoot down rogue nukes – devastate the offending nations with our own nukes.

The only solution I see here.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I am all for advancements and adjusting as the enemy adjusts.

I believe Obama makes adjustments based on politics not on strategic defense.

From NBC’s Libby LeistSecretary of State Clinton defended President Obama’s decision on missile defense saying, “This decision was not about Russia
HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Do you honestly believe that this decision was not about Russia.

How can any competent person say that when the President goes over to Russia,holds televised conferences,and announces this news as part of their “restart” with Russia that it is not about Russia.

It was the Russians making all the noise about the missile defense and the radar installations.

If it was so clear that they were not scrapping missile defense than why was Biden having to go over there to soothe tempers and why did the Polish papers have screaming headlines of “betrayed” stamped all over them.

I think your point about it not being a flip flop stands.
But the White House pushed the theme of scrapping missile defense like this BBC Headline indicates:

US President Barack Obama has cancelled plans to station an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

…and did not exactly push all corners of their media empire to correct it.

I am not criticizing Obama because of what the press said.
But I am also not going to congratulate him for making a big show about “Scrapping Bush-era missile defense” when the theme should have been “improving Bush-era missile defense”.
He gave the impression that he was scrapping this defense policy and Biden having to make peace combined with the outrage from much of eastern Europe showed that he sent this message, right or wrong.

I am criticizing Obama for appeasing Russia,canceling a very beneficial intelligence gathering opportunity,and being weak across the board on National Defense.

marybel on October 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM

There’s a lot of nuance to missile defense and it has many tentacles. One element is the shield over Europe, one element is the shield over the Continental U.S.

I have never defended Obama’s overall position on missile defense – his campaign statements on the subject were naive and irresponsible. Cutting the Airborne Laser is a big mistake I think.

But overhauling the Bush plan for intercept missiles in Poland and Czech may not be a bad plan. Especially if Gates is honestly backing it.

Gates said … outright – this new plan is better than the Bush plan. I believe in Gates. I don’t think he’d lie about that.

We need to ease up on this particular decision. It may have been a very smart decision.

It looks like we will have missiles on the ground in Europe now maybe three years sooner than we would have under the Bush plan.

Not that the Bush plan was flawed – but it was three years old – and technology advances an order of magnitude in that amount of time.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-obama-is-wrong-on-missile-defense-15258

I think this was written prior to today’s announcement.

The White House went with the “Scrapping missile defense” headlines as a choice.
So I appreciate Obama not scrapping our entire missile defense system in Poland but think he made a serious mistake in capitulating by not installing the radar/intelligence installations.

Baxter Greene on October 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM

But the White House didn’t “choose” that headline …

Here’s what Hillary said a day after the decision was made, and it jibes perfectly with what’s happening now …

From NBC’s Libby LeistSecretary of State Clinton defended President Obama’s decision on missile defense saying, “This decision was not about Russia it was about IRAN and the threat its ballistic missile program poses.” She said the change proposed by Obama will deploy missile defense sooner – a “stronger and smarter approach.” She made the comments during a speech at the Brookings Institution, previewing next week’s session of the U.N. General Assembly….

democrats have fought against missile defense for decades and if it had not been for Republican leadership and our military,we would have none.

We are neck deep in the War on Terror,Obama has been AWOL on Afghanistan only talking to McCrystal one time face to face and one video conference since Obama put his new strategy in place in March.
Now does not know what strategy to take even though he has not given McCrystal the resources to implement his original strategy,and is sending out excuse after excuse (Taliban is not dangerous,we need to concentrate on Pakistan,the government is corrupt) as to why he won’t address McCrystal’s recommendations.
So how does Obama want to address our military’s needs during war time:

Obama on National Defense
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E&feature=player_embedded

I am not going to give Obama to much dam# credit for not scrapping a defense system that he should not have been talking about scrapping in the first place.

If you are going to adjust what your plan is or “improve it” than great,announce it.
The White House went with the “Scrapping missile defense” headlines as a choice.
So I appreciate Obama not scrapping our entire missile defense system in Poland but think he made a serious mistake in capitulating by not installing the radar/intelligence installations.

The Russians are not and putting missile defense back in is not hokey pokey. It’s making the first move and then picking up the big stick when the response to the first move is acceptable.

Good for him. And bad for you for belittling him for doing this.

pabarge on October 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM

I know you are probably a troll but any Conservative blogger who dumps on him for developing a smaller, more capable system – which is exactly what he said he’d do a month ago – IS doing a disservice.

Did Obama hang a carrot out there to see if the Ruskies would bite?

Well … that would be giving Obama a lot of credit that I don’t think he deserves. It would have been a brilliant plan though – a “faux” cancellation of missile defense just to see how the Russians would react before announcing a better system in the same locations.

I don’t think that was his intention though – and the reason I don’t … is because he completely broadcasted what he was doing last month with missile defense. If he were trying to “fool” the Russians – he would not have posted the entire plan a month ago on whitehouse.gov. The ONLY part of that plan not really posted was that some of the missiles would be in Poland. However, NYT got a quote on 17 September from the White House saying that the new missiles “might be” located in Czech and Poland.

No – I think that Gates and the Defense Department did a good job that was botched by Obama. You cannot argue that his announcing the missile cancellations on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion wasn’t pure ignorance.

Obama is an idiot.

I would say that he’s done precisely what he said he would do … unilaterally move to appease the Russians and then see if the Russians are forthcoming with results.

The Russians are not and putting missile defense back in is not hokey pokey. It’s making the first move and then picking up the big stick when the response to the first move is acceptable.

Good for him. And bad for you for belittling him for doing this.

I like it…

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I’m not an expert on missile defense … but I am pretty much an expert on DoD weapons procurement. The fact is – the DoD has a record of failure in planning complex weapons systems using today’s technology and then delivering it to the field two decades later. An excruciating example to me is the “SeaWolf” submarine (SSN 21). Back when I was a wee pup Submariner in 1984 – all of us guys knew that the SEAWOLF was going to be the replacement for the SSN-688 Los Angeles Class. We envisioned hundreds of these things.

But SSN 21 didn’t come along until like 15 years later – rife with cost overruns and QA problems. I’m still not sure that boat ever did a successful deployment – it was so broke. It was a running joke years later when I was an OLD submariner.

Anyway – if the administration is planning on deploying today’s tech … well … today – and developing the system as technology advances – I like that plan and can’t criticise it.

We need to be careful before we sling barbs at Obama on Defense issues – because he’s got Gates, Petraeus, and the others. As long as he listens to them – he’s doing the right thing. In this case – it appears he was listening.