Posted on 11/12/2001 11:01:03 AM PST by rightwing2
November 6, 2001
Bush's Reykjavik moment
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., The Washington Times
The U.S. president meets in an unusual location with his Kremlin counterpart. Amidst high expectations of a summit breakthrough, the latter offers the former a totally transformed relationship between their two countries, prominently featuring massive reductions in offensive nuclear arms. There is only one catch: The American leader must abandon his commitment to defend his people against the threat of ballistic missile attack. Of course, the date was October 1986, not November 2001; the venue, Reykjavik, Iceland, not Crawford, Texas. The American president was Ronald Reagan, not George W. Bush. And the man from Moscow was Mikhail Gorbachev, not Vladimir Putin.
Yet, if press reports informed by State Department leaks are to be believed, basically the same play is going to be run by the Kremlin team in the upcoming summit at President Bush's Texas ranch as Mr. Reagan confronted 15 years ago in Iceland. Now, as then, the diplomats of Foggy Bottom are encouraging the president to believe he has a historic opportunity to secure a breakthrough with the old Cold War enemy. Echoed by an international press corps and foreign policy elite that have always viewed with alarm the idea that the United States might actually depart from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to have missile defenses prohibited by that accord, the State Department is pressing Mr. Bush to make a deal.
Under the terms of this deal, Mr. Bush would presumably have to dispense, for the time being at least, with any further talk about the ABM Treaty being "outdated, antiquated and useless" — let alone "dangerous." Despite his repeated assertions that the United States has to "move beyond" that accord in order to deploy effective anti-missile systems "at the earliest possible time," he would have to agree not to deploy any missile defenses for some period and to leave intact the ABM Treaty's prohibitions on such deployments.
In exchange, the Russians would agree somehow to modify or at least to ignore other provisions of the ABM Treaty that also prohibit development and testing of promising U.S. defensive technologies — notably, sea-, air- and space-based anti-missile weapons and sensors. The Kremlin would also throw in an agreement to cut their strategic offensive forces to around 1,500 weapons, provided the U.S. undertook to do roughly the same. Now, it is far from clear just how this would work. Of course, the Russians — and the Soviets before them — have been adept at ignoring provisions of treaties that prove inconvenient. (In fact, such a practice has allowed the former U.S.S.R. to deploy a full-up territorial anti-missile defense prohibited by the ABM Treaty). But, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made clear, Americans don't violate treaties.
Changing the treaty to eliminate its constraints on development and testing, however, sounds a lot like the sort of line-in, line-out amending process that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has correctly, and repeatedly, said could not be used with the ABM Treaty. If, instead of adopting the new "strategic framework" that dispenses with the ABM Treaty altogether sought by the new administration since it came to office, the Bush team winds up effectively amending it, the unamended parts will continue to constitute unacceptable impediments to the actual realization of protection against missile attack.
It is predictable, moreover, that such changes to an existing treaty will be seen by the Democratic Senate as requiring its advice and consent. Under that body's present leadership, such an exercise would surely translate into an affirmation of the prohibitions on deployment that would be left intact — hardly a legislative history a president committed to defending his people would welcome. In addition, preserving any part of the ABM Treaty would have the effect of establishing unequivocally that the Russians are a party to that accord. This would give them legal standing they do not currently enjoy (the 1972 accord having been signed with the U.S.S.R., not Russia). It would also confer legitimacy on the Kremlin's future efforts to veto U.S. deployments of which they do not approve. At the very least, such an arrangement flies in the face of all President Bush's exhortations that the "Cold War is over" and that bilateral arms control treaties (whether governing defensive or offensive forces) are not appropriate in light of the changed nature of the Russo-American relationship.
The rejection by Ronald Reagan of Mr. Gorbachev's offer to ban all nuclear weapons if only the Gipper would give up on his Strategic Defense Initiative not only defined Mr. Reagan's presidency. Despite the Bronx cheers Mr. Reagan got from critics at home and abroad for having missed the opportunity Reykjavik presented for "peace in our time," even Soviet leaders subsequently acknowledged that his determination to stay the course on missile defense helped catalyze the unraveling of the Evil Empire.
Today, George W. Bush faces an eerily similar test of leadership. To be sure, there will be those at the editorial boards of the New York Times and The Washington Post, in the salons of Cambridge and in allied capitals who will revile him for rejecting Mr. Putin's deal — even though it would ineluctably have the effect of perpetuating America's vulnerability to missile attack, rather than move us in the direction of ensuring it is ended once and for all. Still, protecting the American people against ballistic missile threats is what Mr. Bush said he would do when he ran for office. It is what he has said since his election he was committed to accomplishing. And it is what he has forcefully declared is even more necessary in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This is President Bush's Reykjavik moment. And as with that of his predecessor, a lot more is riding on the decision about missile defense than simply the credibility of the president's word.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
Pray for America.
This is the bottom line. We have to ask Bush questions.
First, President Bush has not given anything away yet with regard to missile defense or the strategic security of this country (there are plenty enough democrats around to do that).
Second, The arguments about 1750 warkeads being enough are true. Do you realize that even at that reduced number, thats more nukes that we (hopefully) will never use than the number of tactical tomahawk missiles we have in the inventory today? (almost twice as many!!). Were not trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons (though its an admirable if unrealistic goal), were trying to reallocate resources to the places they are needed without bankrupting the country in the process.
Conventional weapons in the US armed forces are largely in need of modernization, and high tech munitions stockpiles are in need of replenishment. This costs plenty and if we can reduce our nuke warheads by 2/3 without changing the overall strategic defense equation, we should just for the cost savings.
The russians have similar (and more pressing) financial incentives to do the same, they have been cooperative since the early 90's in our joint efforts to destroy weapons from the former USSR states, and since no one else out there poses a threat of several hundred or thousand nukes, we have no justification for maintaining the current numbers (pending a reduction agreement, of course)
Bush is doing great, he is well advised, he is not naive, and we should all be thankful we can breath a little easier about the future of our national security.
Arms control agreements with the Russians are a self-defeating proposition because they cannot be trusted to keep them. Better far to do what's best for the country than make an agreement predicated on Russia's goodwill and trustworthiness as an arms control partner.
And the two are mutally exclusive?
When it comes to defense, more is better.
Depends on what you mean by more.
Bush & Co think they know what they are doing, but in fact they are fairly clueless when it comes to the national security of the country....
Suppose you explain specifically where President Bush's national security policy is 'clueless'. Before you make such statements, perhaps you should demonstrate that you understand what his national security strategy and policy are, and then debunk it. Don't forget to cite your sources when you try to tell us his policy (by the way, a news paper editorial does not count as a source for the US National Security policy.
When it comes to defense, more is better...
And what military school of warfare did you glean this from? That's how the Iraqi army felt with is 3 to 1 advantage in the gulf war. Thats how the russians felt in Afghanistan. Two examples of modern day armies superior in numbers that did not understand how to properly employ their forces. As for nukes, there was a time when MAD was the only solution that provided a quasi-stable political environment, but that is not the only option today. I for one do not want my kids to grow up with the threat of nuclear destruction as I recall from my own childhood (drop drills in school only 10 miles from the GA Lockheed Marietta Aircraft plant that was surely on the early hit list)
I do not agree with many of Bush's policies and proposals pertaining to nuclear disarmament and giving Russia & CHina too much to get missile defense( I am for missile defense)based on my belief that his policies and proposals do not have adequate merit ( I am a conservatice Republican). It would not matter whose policies or proposals they are, I still do not agree with Bush's policies and proposals in these areas and I do not blindly accept them just because they might be proposed and formulated by Bush or some else who enjoys popularity.
To blindly accept everything Bush proposes or does would be as bad a Congress voting for a bill it never reads or never considers adding amendments to. THis is still a participatory democracy. Bush and his advisors do not have a monopoly on wisdom or judgement in running the affairs of this country.
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.