POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

Time for a fresh start on, er, START?

I've written before, on several occasions and at some length, here at POWIP about my objections to the START treaty which the Senate may be voting on here.  While my preening ego would prefer you read the preceding link, I'll sum up my objections as succinctly as possible:

1)  I believe it spares the Russians the expense of maintaining/modernizing their strategic arsenal at a time where they would be faced with the hard choice of doing so, or spending the much needed money elsewhere; a problem we don't face since our arsenal, while perhaps a bit dated, is nowhere near as ineffective and dilapidated as the Russian's currently is.

2)  I object strongly to the language in the treaty document's preamble that, while not explicit, at least implicitly freezes our missile defense systems at their current levels.  This is an area where we have an enormous edge over the rest of the nations on earth, and rightly so, since we have spent so much money and effort to develop it to it's current operational level as well as prepare the groundwork for the next quantum leap in the technology; capabilities hinted at by the successful tests of the ABL (Airborne Laser system).  These systems will be important components of our nation's defenses for many decades to come, protecting us from nations other than Russia, as well as against rogue regimes and operators, and should not be traded; especially for limitations that are not necessarily in our best interests.

3)  While an agreement with the Russians may indeed go a long way towards "resetting" the relationship between our nations, we have yet to see any real concrete signs of increased cooperation from the administration's decision last year to cancel the deployment of the scheduled ballistic missile defense battery in eastern Europe.  Aside from unenthusiastic support at the UN for weak sanctions on Iran, which by the way are in Russia's interest anyway since they, you know, are in their immediate proximity, or any sign that they will provide any kind of strategic balance against the ever burgeoning Chinese military; the latter in and of itself being one of those delicious ironies of history since we used our friendship with the Chinese after 1972 during the cold war as leverage against the Soviets!

4)  I think that the Treaty in its current form surrenders the strategic initiative to our adversaries which is something a commander should never do; just ask Sun Tzu.

As I've said many times before, I think that through the START treaty, Obama is merely seeing through some of the hookah induced, hippy-chick orgy attending, dreams from his NO-NUKES! days.  Interestingly, so it seems does George Will:

The Framers of the Constitution, a nuisance regretted by most modern presidents, gave the legislative branch - another indignity inflicted on presidents, as they see it - an important role in making foreign policy. The Framers did so by, among other provisions, requiring the consent of two-thirds of the Senate (today, 67 votes) to treaties. The Framers' wisdom is confirmed by Barack Obama's impatience with senators reluctant to ratify, during Congress's lame-duck session, the New START treaty pertaining to Russia's nuclear weapons.

The impertinence of mere senators modifying their handiwork will scandalize the Cold War arms control clerisy, who are still with us. These custodians of humanity's salvation, these speakers of an argot (SLBMs, ICBMs, MIRVs, etc.) more arcane to the laity than Latin was to 14th-century peasants, are marvelously unimpressed by the events of 1991. If, when the Soviet Union disappeared, Russia had disintegrated until only the Moscow metropolitan area remained, the clerisy would be earnestly negotiating arms agreements with that city's police force.

America's domestic policy is bedeviled by reactionary liberalism, whose adherents resist any diminution of any entitlement. Barack Obama's tumble into a time warp - his overinvestment in an arms agreement with the emaciated Russian bear - proves that reactionary liberalism does not end at the water's edge.

Why, the cheek of these scoundrels, refusing to rubberstamp the President's foreign agreements; why the Democrats gave Boooooooooooosh! everything he wanted, such as the Korean and Colombian trade agreements-not...Those eeeeevolll, obstructionist, unpatriotic RETHUGS! are proving that they are the RAAAAAAAACIST! H8TERZ that, er, the MFM has sought to portray them as; just as Eugene Robinson...

Notwithstanding the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth on the port side of the political spectrum and the exhortations of some GOP foreign policy luminaries, and my aforementioned reservations, Ed Meese and Richard Perle write about one that I hadn't even considered in today's Wall Street Journal:

The administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.

Never in U.S. history has a lame-duck Congress voted on a strategic nuclear arms-control treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia. That is why a group of 10 newly elected Republican senators sent a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanding that they be allowed to perform their constitutionally mandated task of advice and consent on this treaty.

Well, so much for the "Reagan would have approved of it" argument.  Which, while respecting the opinions of Messers. Baker III, Kissinger, and Powell, I think has been a bit of a reach from the start.  Ronnie played hardball with the Soviets when negotiating arms control treaties.  Recall all of the shrieking when he started the whole missile defense ball rolling with his much hated, by America's enemies abroad and here at home, "Star Wars" program (the Strategic Defense Initiative).

In my humble opinion, the vote on the START treaty should be postponed until the new Senate convenes.  And not merely to deny Mr. Obama a foreign policy victory, because like most who've been in harms way, indeed like most patriotic Americans, politics ends at the water's edge; unlike the giant paper-mache head sporting Lafayette Square protest marchers, or those who continue to insist "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED" (in the face of recent contradictory evidence) and, perhaps most shameful, sitting legislators, including the current President and Vice-President, publicly proclaiming"THE WAR IS LOST!", or "THE SURGE ISN'T WORKING!".  No, once it's "feet wet", there are no more Republicans and Democrats, only Americans...

This treaty needs to be held over, for consideration and ratification by the new Senate; one that is accountable to the voters and not populated, in part at least, by unaccountable "lame ducks".  And I would urge those new Senators to carefully weigh the language of the treaty, but also to ensure that in the good-faith effort to limit the offensive strategic weaponry of the U.S. and Russia they don't suffer us the unintended consequence of retard, hamstring, or otherwise limit our ability to defend ourselves from attacks by other strategic adversaries.  I'm sorry, but at this point, two years into the Obama Presidency, it's become painstakingly clear that all of his promises come with expiration dates that are never known when said promise is palavered.

Need an example?  Well just consider his recent reversal on oil drilling offshore.

So I say, take your time, get it right, in substance as well as language.  It will still be his foreign policy accomplish no matter when it is actually ratified.  What do you think kind reader?

Rocketman