Posted on 04/17/2014 11:10:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Hawks in the wild tend to be solitary creatures. But those in Washington, D.C., often appear in noisy flocks. As Russian President Vladimir Putin continues his predatory activities in Ukraine, conservatives here are unanimous on how the Obama administration should respond: by emulating the Bush administration.
A favorite demand is reviving the European missile defense that George W. Bush began during his final months in office. "We could go back and reinstate the ballistic missile defense program that was taken out," Dick Cheney said. "Obama took it out to appease Putin." Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., agreed that "we should definitely revisit missile defense." Ditto Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
The suggestion is odd for several reasons. One is that missile defense would be useless against either a ground assault by Russia or a covert effort to foment rebellion against the Kiev government. Another is that the small anti-missile system Bush had in mind was not designed to counter the Russian nuclear arsenal.
"In fact, it's just not even logically possible for it to be aimed at Russia, given how Russia could overwhelm it," noted White House press secretary Dana Perino in 2008. "The purpose of missile defense is to protect our European allies from any rogue threats, such as a missile from Iran."
But the hawks have a problem. They have a pathological need and a political incentive to fault President Barack Obama for timidity on Ukraine. At the same time, they must distract attention from the fact that they don't actually propose to do anything likely to affect Putin's behavior.
Invoking missile defense allows a pretense of toughness, even if it's only a millimeter deep. It also lets them claim that Ukraine would be intact if only Obama had not invited Russian aggression. Their arguments, however, are a masterpiece of irrelevance.
The case rests on fictions, starting with the claim that he abandoned missile defense in Europe in a naive attempt to pacify the Russians. It's true that the Kremlin denounced the Bush plan. But that was not the reason for the change. The reason was that the system didn't look as though it would be adequate for its assigned task of shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles.
Obama actually didn't abandon missile defense in Europe. Instead, he replaced the Bush plan, which relied on equipment that hadn't been tested, with one making use of existing weapons. Unlike the original program, says Ohio Wesleyan University political scientist Sean Kay, Obama's "is based on proven and capable technology."
This choice, however, allegedly betrayed our faithful allies in Warsaw and Prague. But Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense under Bush as well as Obama -- and who has been critical of Obama on Ukraine -- debunked that notion in 2011.
The deployment Bush envisioned in the Czech Republic, he informed a Senate committee, "was not going to happen, because the Czech government wouldn't approve the radar." Also, he noted, "we still hadn't negotiated the required agreements with the Poles." The Obama version circumvented those obstacles.
In his memoir, "Duty," Gates wrote, "I never understood the fury of the U.S. critics. The new plan would get defenses operational in Europe and for our 80,000 troops there years earlier than the Bush proposal." As for the appeasement charge, he scoffed: "Making the Russians happy wasn't exactly on my to-do list."
Nor was anyone doing end-zone dances in the Kremlin. After Obama announced the new system, the Russians charged that it "undermines global stability and violates the current balance of nuclear forces." What American hawks describe as surrender, Putin depicted as hostile.
There is no reason to think reviving Plan A would alter Putin's strategic calculus, much less freeze him in his tracks. Putting that system together would take years, even if the Poles and Czechs cooperated -- on top of the technical challenges of making it work. Making it work, though, would not impede Russia from preying on its neighbors with tanks and infantry, which are strangely impervious to ballistic missile interceptors.
The stark fact is that Ukraine is not a place over which the U.S. and NATO should be ready to go to war, and nothing short of going to war will change its fate. American hawks imagine that Bush's missile defense would have been an impressive symbol of Western resolve. But Putin is not the type to be scared of symbols.
Has it finally occurred to anyone why Putin was against the European Missile Defense Systems that America was planning to provide? Our "Cheap Suit in an Empty Chair" POTUS folded at the waist while hollering "Thank You, Sir may I have another!" on that issue.
Maybe not but it was sure on the list of your boss. Stupid reset button anyone?
That depends on what he defines as Ukraine's "fate". If the Russians choose to invade, no one, not even NATO, can stop it. It can attempt to reverse it, but an invasion decision is Putin's alone. What the West can do, well short of sending troops is, if Ukrainians choose to fight, supply the resistance with weaponry and other supplies. The rest is up to the Ukrainian resistance.
Robert Gates was kept on for one, and only one, reason - he would provide Obama with a fig leaf for the dismantlement of the US military. It’s not surprising that he’d attempt to camouflage his appeasement-minded actions with tough rhetoric.
Reagan saw the struggle as a world war with multiple theaters of war. Respond to the bombing of the Marines in Beirut with an invasion of Grenada.
Wrong and wrong, Mr. Chapman. By appeasing Putin from day one, Obama opened the door to this current action. He knew there would be no consequence and can do whatever he wants. There is a leadership vacuum in the world now because we essentially have no president when it comes to foreign affairs. Putin can do whatever the hell he wants with no real consequence. It started with the removal of the defense shield.
I thought he backed the serge.
Chapman is just as wrong on this as one can be. Czech Republic and Poland wanted the missile defense, just as much as Iraq and Afghanistan wanted US forces to remain.
Obama made the decisions to pull the appeasement card in all of these cases and he trotted out Gates and others to make excuses for him.
The article misses the point. Putin objected to the missile shield BECAUSE he is giving back-door cooperation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But that aside, Obama’s cancelling of the missile shield got exactly nothing in return. It was a ‘gift’ to Putin. Give a tyrant a gift and he’ll demand more. THAT was Obama’s naivete at work.
Remember when Joe Biden told him during 2008 presidential debates that the presidency is not something that could be learned. He still has not learned it, and if the drive-by media had done it’s job and vetted him he would have never been elected
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.