Georgia's absurd invasion of South Ossetia last year, and the Russian counter-invasion, demonstrated one thing very, very clearly: in Eastern Europe, particularly in the South, even implied protection by the West will be used to justify cross-border attacks against Russia. That's just how that part of the world works. If Georgia had succeeded in getting NATO membership prior to 2008, we would have had to defend the Georgians while they went about invading a nuclear power run by a severely pissed off Head of State.
And so tell me again, the reason Chicago got nuked was that Georgia wanted to exercise its sovereignty over South Ossetia, even though the South Ossetians hate the Georgians and were clamoring for protection from the Russians? That explanation for millions of Chi-town deaths over some squabble over Caucasian statelets would never fly inside the Loop. Paraphrasing John McCain: Thank God we are all NOT Georgians now!
Thank God Obama rather than Bush is President. We are safer as a result:
It is therefore remarkable that reason has prevailed in the case of missile defense. True to the norms of our nation's capital however, the rationale for cancelling the program has been justified in terms that are as bogus as the original arguments for taking the decision. The Bush administration claimed that it was essential to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland to counter missiles that might be launched from Iran.
The real reason for going ahead with an initiative that angered the Russians, alienated our NATO allies and did not have public support in either Poland or the Czech Republic was legacy building. With eight accomplishment-free years in office, Bush desperately needed to provide those at his belief tank at SMU with something positive they could point to as they attempt to rewrite history.
No matter that billions would be spent on a weapons system that does not work designed to counter a threat that does not exist.
The system has never passed a realistic test and can easily be defeated by decoys. In addition, to counter a defensive shield of 10 missiles an adversary needs exactly 11 missiles. Nonetheless those who shill for the military industrial complex are always ready to embrace an ever higher level of defense spending and to use fear to defend it.
...The Obama administration did the right thing with its decision, but could not justify killing the program simply on the basis of the fact that it was a monumentally dumb idea. Instead, the excuse offered was a new review of the intelligence had determined that Iran's missile program had not developed as had been projected and therefore a different system was needed. This would seem to be another example, like the case made for invading Iraq, where the conclusions of an intelligence assessment are tailored to fit a political decision that has already been taken.
The Obama administration also cannot say that we need the cooperation of Russia on a whole range of issues more than we need to please some in the governments of a couple of weak Eastern European countries. Russia feared the defense system might morph into a threat to them. Even if that seems unrealistic, are they not entitled to their point of view and should we not take it into consideration? How would we interpret Russia reviving the Warsaw Pact and inviting countries in Latin America to join?
Regardless of the reasons offered, the right decision has been made. Nevertheless, those who lose sleep at night worrying about whether Albania or Argentina might use their missile capability to launch an attack on the United States can rest easy. While the European missile defense system has been cancelled, the one being installed in California and Alaska is still going ahead and wasting some $10 billion a year.
No comments:
Post a Comment