A lot of people are angry at President Obama for this decision (surprise!), but it should be pointed out that the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended this course of action. Are they all wrong?
2 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:00:09pm |
I would be very interested in any actual positions against this action beyond the rhetoric of surrender, etc, etc. Any links appreciated.
| 3 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:00:38pm |
| 5 |
jaunte Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:02:56pm |
re: #2 Locker
This is one, but it’s fairly vague:
Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense under Mr. Bush, said in an interview that the decision had “good news and bad news.”“It’s better, obviously, to have some missile defense capability there now,” he said. But he said the move would “raise questions” about American commitments and make it harder for the United States to change course if Iran later developed longer-range missiles. “There are going to be enormous repercussions to this decision that will ripple out,” he said.[Link: www.nytimes.com…]
| 6 |
MisterCookie Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:03:38pm |
I wish they hadn’t, but I’m sure they had their reasons. Like Bush not taking any direct military action on Iran.
| 7 |
experiencedtraveller Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:04:46pm |
Obama does not favor missile defense.
| 8 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:05:03pm |
Holy crap!
There are eyeballs on the microphones looking at me while he is speaking! He IS the evil one! Evil!
| 9 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:06:37pm |
Well, this is from that NY Times article:
Mr. Obama’s transformation of the missile defense program is one of his administration’s sharpest revisions of the national security policy he inherited from Mr. Bush. At the same time, he resisted pressure from liberals in his party to eliminate the program altogether and he produced an alternative that effectively guaranteed that the United States would deploy some form of European antimissile shield in the near future.
That sounds to me like he canceled Bush’s plan but is putting in a different plan. That’s not really the same as bailing on the shield, which was the impression I had all day from the words flying around.
| 10 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:08:07pm |
Interesting decision. The Czech and Polish governments will be unhappy because they agreed to siting the missiles in their countries despite negative public opinion, but the Russians will be happy.
Happy Russians may help us put pressure on the Iranians to not enrich their uranium above fuel grade (it can’t be used in a nuke at that point).
In addition, the original plan did nothing to protect Israel, while placing the Aegis cruisers in the eastern Med will actually give some protection to our middle east allies, as our shipboard anti-missile systems actually seem to work (land-based systems have proven woefully inadequate at this point). Since the Iranian’s missiles are all short and medium range, this seems reasonable policy for the near term.
| 12 |
Danny Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:08:59pm |
I’m not thrilled. Looks more like a decision based on political compromise than defense strategy. Hope I’m wrong.
| 13 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09:12pm |
I was pissed when I first saw the accounts coming out of Europe. Many were not happy with what was leaked including Lech Walesa. Here is a google quote page with quotes from him for the last 24 hours.
[Link: news.google.com…]
The sea based / mobile system may be a better fit. But, as Walesa alludes to (just read his quotes like “I don’t like this policy. It’s not that we need the shield, but it’s about the way we’re treated here”), this move has done some damage to the eastern states in NATO and has re-concentrated NATO policy power in French/German hands.
Anyway - I am not as pissed about the ABM capability. But we have screwed over some countries that gave us help when other “allies” wouldn’t.
| 14 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09:16pm |
re: #9 Locker
Agree. Seems like the only reports I heard today were that the missile shield program was being scrapped all together.
| 16 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:10:12pm |
Of course they’re wrong. Obama hypnotized them.
Right, Zomb?
| 17 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:10:22pm |
Alright, some of you may question my sanity with this post, but here goes.
I like this approach.
I’m sick and tired of European countries begging us to protect them with our missile defense technology, and then they turn around and bash us every chance they get. They beg us to put our troops and equipment on their soil, then threaten to kick us out when they don’t like something we did to hurt their widdle feewings.
Fuck. That.
I like the idea of a U.S. warship based missile defense system that is totally under our control, with no ties to any European country. Plus some really smart military guys said do it.
So, in this respect, I support the president’s decision.
| 18 |
cliffster Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:10:53pm |
He says he’s spoken with the prime ministers of Czech Republic and Poland so I guess it’s all good, but it seems like they stuck their neck out a bit for this thing and now we’re pulling it back. That’s the only thing that strikes me. Busy day today though so I haven’t read that closely.
| 19 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:10:55pm |
re: #17 Racer X
Alright, some of you may question my sanity with this post, but here goes.
I like this approach.
I’m sick and tired of European countries begging us to protect them with our missile defense technology, and then they turn around and bash us every chance they get. They beg us to put our troops and equipment on their soil, then threaten to kick us out when they don’t like something we did to hurt their widdle feewings.
Fuck. That.
I like the idea of a U.S. warship based missile defense system that is totally under our control, with no ties to any European country. Plus some really smart military guys said do it.
So, in this respect, I support the president’s decision.
My man!
| 20 |
Dar ul Harb Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:11:13pm |
Are they all wrong?
Guess we’ll find out, won’t we?
| 21 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:11:16pm |
re: #8 Racer X
Holy crap!
There are eyeballs on the microphones looking at me while he is speaking! He IS the evil one! Evil!
That’s just the money you could be saving by switching to GEICO-
/
| 22 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:11:54pm |
re: #17 Racer X
But to the best of my knowledge, Poland and Czech Republic have not been bashing us. If this were Western Europe we were doing this to, then I’d agree with you.
| 24 |
MisterCookie Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:12:12pm |
Enrages me to know end how much European citizens brag about their higher quality of life, while we foot the bill for their defense.
| 25 |
swamprat Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:12:39pm |
Everything is fine.
Here is Chavez on a shopping trip to Russia. (missiles and tanks)
And here is Russia selling MIGs to Syria.
And of course, here is Russia acting in a not-so-purely defensive manner.
Iran is becoming nuclear.
So is North Korea, and they make these darling missiles!
What could possibly go wrong?
| 26 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:13:19pm |
Obama junks Bush’s European missile defense plan
Scrapping the planned shield, however, means upending agreements with the host countries that had cost those allies political support among their own people. Obama called Polish and Czech leaders ahead of his announcement, and a team of senior diplomats and others flew to Europe to lay out the new plan.
“The U.S. president’s decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. “Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.”
At the same time, Russia’s top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.
The spokesman of Iran’s parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, Kazem Jalali, called the decision positive, though in a backhanded way.
“It would be more positive if President Obama entirely give up such plans, which were based on the Bush administration’s Iran-phobic policies,” Jalali told The Associated Press.
Make of that what you will, enemies of America praise the decision, estwhile allies not so much.
“Smart diplomacy” is beyond me obviously.
| 27 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:13:22pm |
re: #17 Racer X
Alright, some of you may question my sanity with this post, but here goes.
I like this approach.
I’m sick and tired of European countries begging us to protect them with our missile defense technology, and then they turn around and bash us every chance they get. They beg us to put our troops and equipment on their soil, then threaten to kick us out when they don’t like something we did to hurt their widdle feewings.
Fuck. That.
I like the idea of a U.S. warship based missile defense system that is totally under our control, with no ties to any European country. Plus some really smart military guys said do it.
So, in this respect, I support the president’s decision.
Well, there was talk about a mobile land-based system. Perhaps THAAD. That would also seem to be a good system to put in place.
| 28 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:13:23pm |
re: #22 timhinhou
But to the best of my knowledge, Poland and Czech Republic have not been bashing us. If this were Western Europe we were doing this to, then I’d agree with you.
Well, I believe those two countries were just going to hold the bases but they would be protecting western Europe, hence the “shield” concept. I could be wrong though.
| 29 |
Sharmuta Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:13:33pm |
re: #10 austin_blue
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
| 30 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:14:02pm |
The reporting was was effectively misleading. The original missile defense program was scraped however missile defense has been retained based on a redesigned strategy based upon the recommendations of the JCS and Secretary Gates.
This actually places focus on Iran and with the current danger posed by short and medium range missiles from Iran. The plan involves naval missile defense systems utilizing AEGIS.
| 32 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:14:46pm |
re: #29 Sharmuta
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
Well, there is a large section of the country/media who will bash Obama no matter what he does so it could just be that. I’ve only read a bit though so, can’t really say for sure.
| 33 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:14:49pm |
re: #29 Sharmuta
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
Probably because they only read the headline.
| 35 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:15:25pm |
re: #17 Racer X
FWIW, I think the USA was held in higher esteem in the former Warsaw Pact nations in Europe (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic) than France or Germany.
At least until today…
| 36 |
Kilroy Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:15:25pm |
I’m glad my grandfather moved.Sitting in Eastern European fly over country may prove problematic.
| 37 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:15:26pm |
re: #14 timhinhou
Agree. Seems like the only reports I heard today were that the missile shield program was being scrapped all together.
It depends on what outlet you were listening to.
NPR covered it as replacing the “Bush system” with a better one. It implied that the old system was clumsily conceived and that the new one would be more effective.
There are various ways to spin this for short term points, and the “white flag” spin is one end and the “reposition” one is another.
This was a concession to Russia before a meeting where we somehow expect Russia to actually want to help “solve” Iran. As long as Iran is rogue but seem containable, Russia will do nothing of substance because it can extort more from us and others in hopes that Iran might get “solved.”
Once it is “solved” then Russia has nothing left to gain from.
They used to play the same game with Iraq.
It is also how they manage gas supplies to Europe.
| 38 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:15:31pm |
OT: Is the LGF spell checker racist because it still puts a red line under Obama??
/sarc
/double and triple sarc
| 39 |
jaunte Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:15:54pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
How about if I say that his hoped-for health insurance legislation is a mess. Feel better?
| 40 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:16:15pm |
re: #19 austin_blue
My man!
I got plenty of other gripes about Obama. But this position I agree with.
| 41 |
Dar ul Harb Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:16:55pm |
re: #35 Fenway_Nation
FWIW, I think the USA was held in higher esteem in the former Warsaw Pact nations in Europe (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic) than France or Germany.
At least until today…
There are no “special relationships” anymore, dontcha know.
| 42 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:17:00pm |
re: #29 Sharmuta
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
Because many people have an intense, visceral distrust of Barack Obama. They therefore imput the worst possible motives to whatever he does. Many of those people have been seen at various Tea Parties.
| 43 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:17:01pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
It’s not that those people don’t deserved to be bashed, but its getting old.
Not nearly as old as these kinds of complaints are getting.
| 44 |
Sharmuta Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:17:07pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
Nonetheless, all I can find on LGF of late is praise for Obama and the constant bashing of Beck/Paul/Birthers etc.
Constant praise for Obama? You aren’t reading the threads then.
And the kooks have earned all the scorn we give them- whether they’re from the left or the right.
| 45 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:17:25pm |
re: #29 Sharmuta
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
See, like this from Drudge:
Dismay in Eastern Europe as Obama ditches missile defense…
Full stop. The Eastern Europe they’re talking about is just the Czech Republic and Poland.
| 46 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:17:48pm |
re: #29 Sharmuta
So this new plan will actually protect Israel where the old plan didn’t?
Why are people bitching then?
No idea. There was no way the old plan could protect Israel. Interceptors in Poland? Silly. Completely unproven tech. We have not proven that our interceptors can hit targets at that kind of ballistic altitude.
Now, Aegis cruises in the eastern Med? Different story. Our anti-missile tech against short-range missiles is pretty good.
| 47 |
swamprat Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:18:09pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
Look at my post 25.
Instead of posting about what other blogs say about LGF, why don’t you post about what actually occurs on lgf?
| 48 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:18:16pm |
re: #46 austin_blue
No idea. There was no way the old plan could protect Israel. Interceptors in Poland? Silly. Completely unproven tech. We have not proven that our interceptors can hit targets at that kind of ballistic altitude.
Now, Aegis cruises in the eastern Med? Different story. Our anti-missile tech against short-range missiles is pretty good.
And flexible.
| 49 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:18:33pm |
Aye, laddies. Wee hafta haff all the Claymores the sergeant wants; the genrul don’t know shite. Th’ sarge, now, he has a stake, ye know; so who should gainsay ‘im? Iff the army wants’t, the army gets’t, as I always say - who’s better to know? Summ genrul sez it’s a waste of munny - fck’m and hiz doghter.
| 50 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:19:09pm |
re: #45 Gus 802
Full stop. The Eastern Europe they’re talking about is just the Czech Republic and Poland.
I heard on the radio today that Poland is ignoring phone calls from Hillary. True?
| 52 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:19:17pm |
ANALYSIS-US firms, others may gain from shield pullback
- Reuters, Peter Apps
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric (GE.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) as well as TPG TPG.UL, one of the world’s largest private equity firms [ID:nLH503244].
Make of it what you will.
| 53 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:19:48pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
I have probably gone out of my way to defend Obama where I normally would not have due to 8 years of Bush derangement syndrome. I did not want to become that person with Obama (as many certainly have).
Nonetheless, all I can find on LGF of late is praise for Obama and the constant bashing of Beck/Paul/Birthers etc.
It’s not that those people don’t deserved to be bashed, but its getting old. It’s not that everything Obama has done is wrong, but to read it from here it seems like he has been dead right about it all.
/rant
I can see how you may have that perspective. Another perspective it that a critical analysis (with some flair, admittedly) of issues is going on and inflammatory statements are being challenged. The comments are normally lively with lots of voices and perspectives chiming in.
While it may not be what you are used to or remember there IS a discussing going on here and fairly often it’s an important and valuable discussion.
| 55 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:19:52pm |
re: #50 Racer X
I heard on the radio today that Poland is ignoring phone calls from Hillary. True?
Don’t know.
| 56 |
Danny Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:13pm |
re: #31 pjaicomo
Suggestion: instead of complaining about the supposed lack of criticism of Obama’s policies on this site, write some.
| 57 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:25pm |
Now there is one thing about this new plan that concerns me: the Russians like it.
| 58 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:26pm |
re: #28 Locker
Didn’t think about that angle (Poland/Czech protecting west due to missiles based there). Still seems this approach would screw the people who have been better allies (Eastern Euros) to get back at those who are constantly criticizing us (Western Euros).
| 59 |
Kilroy Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:28pm |
re: #46 austin_blue
If the old plan was so flawed why are the Russian so happy to see it go away?
| 61 |
Sharmuta Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:53pm |
re: #54 pjaicomo
Get your own blog- then we’ll come over and tell you what to post.
| 62 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:20:58pm |
| 66 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:21:57pm |
re: #50 Racer X
I heard on the radio today that Poland is ignoring phone calls from Hillary. True?
President refused her call, expected to hear from Obama, not her.
| 67 |
Flyers1974 Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22:00pm |
re: #25 swamprat
Everything is fine.
Here is Chavez on a shopping trip to Russia. (missiles and tanks)
And here is Russia selling MIGs to Syria.
And of course, here is Russia acting in a not-so-purely defensive manner.
Iran is becoming nuclear.
So is North Korea, and they make these darling missiles!
What could possibly go wrong?
Many things can go wrong. When in our history has this not been true?
| 68 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22:13pm |
re: #50 Racer X
I heard on the radio today that Poland is ignoring phone calls from Hillary. True?
Maybe they are waiting for her to Polish her message.
| 69 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22:20pm |
You know what? I like beating dead horses best of all.
They feel no pain, but the bystanders take a lesson.
| 70 |
swamprat Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22:28pm |
re: #49 Cato the Elder
When I heard that scots used claymores in man to man fighting, I was well impressed!
Then I found out they weren’t casting live mines at each other…
| 71 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22:35pm |
I didn’t even get my chance to get in my snarky comment. I’ll use it anyway:
You must be delightful fun at dinner parties.”
| 72 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:23:04pm |
re: #69 Cato the Elder
You know what? I like beating dead horses best of all.
They feel no pain, but the bystanders take a lesson.
[smiles and updings]
| 73 |
cliffster Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:23:10pm |
re: #54 pjaicomo
There’s smoke on the water, it’s been there since June,
Tree trunks uprooted, ‘neath the high crescent moon
Feel the pulse and vibration and the rumbling force
Somebody is out there beating the dead horse.
She never said nothing there was nothing she wrote,
She’s gone with the man
In the long black coat.
— bob dylan, Man in the Long Black Coat
| 75 |
Bloodnok Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:23:37pm |
re: #54 pjaicomo
“Oh, please Charles. Notice me!!”
So glad you logged in just to post this drivel instead of just, you know, not doing so.
| 76 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:23:43pm |
re: #71 EmmmieG
I didn’t even get my chance to get in my snarky comment. I’ll use it anyway:
You must be delightful fun at dinner parties.”
He is, until he shits on the centerpiece.
| 77 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:23:57pm |
re: #68 Spare O’Lake
Maybe they are waiting for her to Polish her message.
You should Czech your sources on whoever told you that…
| 78 |
Flyers1974 Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:24:26pm |
re: #57 Racer X
Now there is one thing about this new plan that concerns me: the Russians like it.
Just a guess, but it may be because of Russian domestic opinion.
| 79 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:24:27pm |
re: #17 Racer X
Alright, some of you may question my sanity with this post, but here goes.
I like this approach.
I’m sick and tired of European countries begging us to protect them with our missile defense technology, and then they turn around and bash us every chance they get. They beg us to put our troops and equipment on their soil, then threaten to kick us out when they don’t like something we did to hurt their widdle feewings.
Fuck. That.
I like the idea of a U.S. warship based missile defense system that is totally under our control, with no ties to any European country. Plus some really smart military guys said do it.
So, in this respect, I support the president’s decision.
Part of me agrees with you.
Notice that the “Iran’s Gotz Nookz” memo came out about an hour after the leak of the ABM news.
Europe plays its own games. It bitches about how the ABM systems piss off Russia but then, behind closed doors, they say “We need it! Don’t scrap it!” So when they thought we were scrapping it, AP gets a fax of an addendum that Washington has wanted to see for sometime. And it screams “You better keep that ABM system, Obama”.
So Obama announces the actual news (which describes an equal mobile capability) and Europe has its feathers smoothed.
But the folks holding the bag are the Eastern European states that signed on to a risky deal with the USA under Bush and just lost a great deal of prestige.
Something else to consider - we had a divided NATO up until this morning. We had the US/UK and “new Europe” versus “old Europe”. When now the EU is the big swinging dick and Poland et al know that the US is not going to deliver. So they will now coordinate foreign policy through Paris / Berlin. We will have no way to play them off of each other anymore.
| 80 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:24:27pm |
re: #59 Kilroy
If the old plan was so flawed why are the Russian so happy to see it go away?
Because it was flawed and had nothing to do with Iran who had (and have) no long range missiles? Hello?
| 81 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:24:41pm |
Regarding the calls to Poland.
Not handled very well I would say…
| 82 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:25:21pm |
re: #58 timhinhou
Didn’t think about that angle (Poland/Czech protecting west due to missiles based there). Still seems this approach would screw the people who have been better allies (Eastern Euros) to get back at those who are constantly criticizing us (Western Euros).
Oh I wasn’t commenting on the approach of screw them or anything, was just saying I think the shield protected Poland/Chech and points “behind” it. I like to think the administration made the decision because it makes sense tactically and politically.
| 83 |
jaunte Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:26:09pm |
re: #79 karmic_inquisitor
When now the EU is the big swinging dick and Poland et al know that the US is not going to deliver. So they will now coordinate foreign policy through Paris / Berlin. We will have no way to play them off of each other anymore.
I think they’ll continue to take care of that themselves.
| 84 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:26:36pm |
I can’t believe how freaking crazy some people are getting.
| 85 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:26:57pm |
re: #59 Kilroy
If the old plan was so flawed why are the Russian so happy to see it go away?
Well, what about publicity? Doesn’t it send a message about where we think the more serious threat lies? Now “they aren’t as bad as Iran” might not be a ringing endorsement but it’s something…
| 86 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:28:01pm |
re: #50 Racer X
I heard on the radio today that Poland is ignoring phone calls from Hillary. True?
Well, sort of.
Polish PM wouldn’t take U.S. calls
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
“Hillary called — and the reason he turned it down was because of protocol,” said a source.
Questions about the exchanges surfaced in the Polish press after Obama reached the Czech prime minister late last night to warn of the policy change, but did not speak to the Pole until this morning. And the static offers a glimpse at the distress beneath the diplomatic facade being offered by Eastern European leaders.
Polish Radio reports today that Tusk confirmed an earlier press report that he hadn’t taken Obama’s call but denied it was due to “technical difficulties.”
Tusk said he declined to speak with President Obama during the night because he wanted to “properly prepare for the discussion.”
A Polish Embassy spokesman noted that Tusk ultimately spoke to Obama, while Clinton spoke to the country’s foreign minister.
| 87 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:28:15pm |
re: #80 austin_blue
Because it was flawed and had nothing to do with Iran who had (and have) no long range missiles? Hello?
Flawed? It was a challenge to Russia’s power, and we scrapped it. Russia is happy, they got what they wanted.
What did we get again?
| 88 |
Sharmuta Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:28:24pm |
But Mr. Obama is betting that over time he can assuage bruised feelings in Europe. And he is betting that his credibility will rise in the Middle East, where he can now argue that the American missile shield will defend both Israel and the Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There are signs that all of them may be interested in nuclear capabilities of their own — especially if they believe that the United States will not stand up to Iran.
Missile defense for Israel. I can support that.
| 89 |
Kilroy Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:28:25pm |
re: #80 austin_blue
I miss your point or get it. The plan was to protect Eastern Europe? Now that is ended is it a victory for Putin?
| 90 |
scrubjay Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:28:44pm |
I would sleep more soundly knowing that an anti-missile defense system was operational.
| 91 |
boot hill Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:29:19pm |
man, what is up with that mic stand…it looks like some corny dragon creature.
| 92 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:29:37pm |
John McCain was not happy today.
2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain (Ariz.) was sharply critical of the Obama administration’s decision Wednesday to abandon a missile shield system in Eastern Europe, saying the president failed to consult Congress.
McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, told The Hill the White House never notified his committee and that he was unaware of the decision until he was notified Thursday morning.
“It was an unfortunate decision, and it was made without consultation with the Czech Republic and the Polish government, and Congress was not briefed,” McCain said. “I think it sends a message to the Russians that could encourage them, and I think it sends a message to our friends and allies not to count on our commitments.”
| 93 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:29:41pm |
re: #84 Charles
I can’t believe how freaking crazy some people are getting.
Funny you know. Think about this matter for example. It comes under the recommendations of JCS and Secretary Gates. Have people forgotten from where Gates comes from? How he effectively took the helm of the Pentagon and was part of the team that helped turn things around in Iraq towards the closer goal of “victory?” And from where we were before that time in November of 2006 when he was chosen to be Secretary of Defense?
| 94 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:29:52pm |
re: #77 Fenway_Nation
You should Czech your sources on whoever told you that…
I shall slavishly follow your suggestion.
| 95 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:30:28pm |
| 96 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:30:45pm |
re: #85 Locker
Well, what about publicity? Doesn’t it send a message about where we think the more serious threat lies? Now “they aren’t as bad as Iran” might not be a ringing endorsement but it’s something…
Some people become reflective with sand in their eyes and ears. Isolation breeds silly thoughts in my limited experience of course.
| 98 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:31:48pm |
re: #82 Locker
Sorry for the poor word choice in prev post. Have to say I enjoy coming on here to get a rundown on angles I haven’t thought of or had spoon fed to me from either side of media. Only problem is you guys are tooo fast so it is hard to keep up with comments and reply!
| 100 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:32:10pm |
“Cash for Clunkers”There is at least one positive result:
Its taken several hundred thousand Obama bumper stickers off the road!
Heh.
| 101 |
Sharmuta Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:32:58pm |
re: #99 NearOcean
Yeah- that bastard. How dare he extend protection to Israel!
| 103 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:33:37pm |
re: #98 timhinhou
Sorry for the poor word choice in prev post. Have to say I enjoy coming on here to get a rundown on angles I haven’t thought of or had spoon fed to me from either side of media. Only problem is you guys are tooo fast so it is hard to keep up with comments and reply!
Tell me about it man. These folks are faster than Bill Curtis.
| 104 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:34:17pm |
| 105 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:34:21pm |
re: #96 The Shadow Do
Some people become reflective with sand in their eyes and ears. Isolation breeds silly thoughts in my limited experience of course.
Sorry if it was silly man. My parents are in Sales and Marketing… I’m always thinking about marketing.
| 106 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:34:53pm |
re: #87 redshirt
Flawed? It was a challenge to Russia’s power, and we scrapped it. Russia is happy, they got what they wanted.
What did we get again?
A better plan to defend our allies in the middle east. One that can work. And the downside of that is…?
| 107 |
Salamantis Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:35:22pm |
As I said before, the deciding factor for me will be whether or not a quid pro quo emerges wherein Russia about faces and supports additional UN sanctions of Iran, as well as other punitive economic and trade measures, and they are enough to halt Iran’s headlong rush towards nuclear weapons capacity..
If this doesn’t happen, we have just ended up damaging some steadfast alliances without gaining any advantage whatsoever over adversaries in exchange.
| 108 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:35:23pm |
| 109 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:35:51pm |
re: #99 NearOcean
Taking a snarky tone with Charles is not good for your account’s health.
| 110 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:35:56pm |
re: #104 Spare O’Lake
It’s a little Greece-ey, I’m afraid.
| 111 |
swamprat Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:36:24pm |
re: #87 redshirt
Flawed? It was a challenge to Russia’s power, and we scrapped it. Russia is happy, they got what they wanted.
What did we get again?
A loss of face.
Less security in Europe.
The knowledge that we are abandoning several newly freed countries to the wolves.
The loss of Georgia as an independent country.
A boost to Russia’s weapons sales.
A go-ahead to our enemies.
A fore-warning to Afghanistan and Iraq of our lack of resolve.
| 112 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:36:47pm |
re: #105 Locker
Sorry if it was silly man. My parents are in Sales and Marketing… I’m always thinking about marketing.
Good job.
| 113 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:06pm |
| 114 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:10pm |
re: #102 Gus 802
America. Love it or leave it.
Too late, he’s been shown the door. That’s our fourth flounce of the night.
| 115 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:12pm |
re: #24 MisterCookie
Enrages me to know end how much European citizens brag about their higher quality of life, while we foot the bill for their defense.
Higher quality of life my ass. They have teeny refrigerators, and the phones make funny noises. And you can’t get a burrito anywhere.
| 116 |
brennant Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:39pm |
It’s Obama Hussein’s sekrit mooslim appeesmint strategeez… havent u herd! The missiah sekritly wantz tha chineez to take us over! Hurryz! Grabz yur bible and gunz!
/
| 117 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:49pm |
re: #105 Locker
Sorry if it was silly man. My parents are in Sales and Marketing… I’m always thinking about marketing.
I’m in sales myself, so I know how you feel.
| 118 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:37:50pm |
re: #106 austin_blue
A better plan to defend our allies in the middle east. One that can work. And the downside of that is…?
Can you flesh that one out a little bit?
| 119 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:38:57pm |
re: #35 Fenway_Nation
FWIW, I think the USA was held in higher esteem in the former Warsaw Pact nations in Europe (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic) than France or Germany.
At least until today…
The Poles always liked us. Most pro-US country in Europe.
| 120 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:39:04pm |
re: #114 Dark_Falcon
Too late, he’s been shown the door. That’s our fourth flounce of the night.
Yeah, saw that coming. That chit is getting old. He’s the president and they need to get over it. Calling him a Marxist is an insult to this country in the end and just as crazy as, well, you know what happened last time around.
| 121 |
Kilroy Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:39:08pm |
Does the new containment policy include Austria as it follows boarders south? The eastern Med has certainly been ceded.
| 122 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:39:11pm |
| 123 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:39:12pm |
re: #116 brennant
It’s Obama Hussein’s sekrit mooslim appeesmint strategeez… havent u herd! The missiah sekritly wantz tha chineez to take us over! Hurryz! Grabz yur bible and gunz!
/
LOL!
| 124 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:39:13pm |
re: #117 Dark_Falcon
I’m in sales myself, so I know how you feel.
Laugh I’m still thinking about it… like.. was that really silly? I’m this Russian trade guy making big deals with other countries. News comes out today and I can spin it eight different ways about how Russia and the US are working together now and the Russian currency is gonna go up etc etc.
Yea I know, maybe I should be a bad fiction writer but shit… there’s always an angle.
| 125 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:40:59pm |
re: #106 austin_blue
A better plan to defend our allies in the middle east. One that can work. And the downside of that is…?
If Russia is happy, they got something.
They offered us nothing in return.
| 126 |
SummerSong Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:41:25pm |
I like missile defense - for us and for our friends.
| 127 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:41:32pm |
re: #107 Salamantis
As I said before, the deciding factor for me will be whether or not a quid pro quo emerges wherein Russia about faces and supports additional UN sanctions of Iran, as well as other punitive economic and trade measures, and they are enough to halt Iran’s headlong rush towards nuclear weapons capacity..
If this doesn’t happen, we have just ended up damaging some steadfast alliances without gaining any advantage whatsoever over adversaries in exchange.
Again: Obama junks Bush’s European missile defense plan
The change comes days before Obama is to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit. Medvedev reacted positively, calling it a “responsible move.”“The U.S. president’s decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. “Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.”
At the same time, Russia’s top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.
| 129 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:42:30pm |
re: #116 brennant
It’s Obama Hussein’s sekrit mooslim appeesmint strategeez… havent u herd! The missiah sekritly wantz tha chineez to take us over! Hurryz! Grabz yur bible and gunz!
/
Soon wheel awl bee lining up to teh FEMA re-edukashun kamps wear wheel awl be turned into Atheeust sniggering Confeturit-lezbianz.
//
| 130 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:42:34pm |
re: #107 Salamantis
As I said before, the deciding factor for me will be whether or not a quid pro quo emerges wherein Russia about faces and supports additional UN sanctions of Iran, as well as other punitive economic and trade measures, and they are enough to halt Iran’s headlong rush towards nuclear weapons capacity..
If this doesn’t happen, we have just ended up damaging some steadfast alliances without gaining any advantage whatsoever over adversaries in exchange.
I heard another theory tonight. Israel has been training their military with war games, Netanyahu recently visited Russia, and now this surprise with the missile shields. Could this have been a deal to allow Israel to attack Iran? That would be a genius move for Obama.
| 131 |
Locker Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:43:46pm |
re: #130 NJDhockeyfan
I heard another theory tonight. Israel has been training their military with war games, Netanyahu recently visited Russia, and now this surprise with the missile shields. Could this have been a deal to allow Israel to attack Iran? That would be a genius move for Obama.
Interesting. Why would Russia make that deal? Trade deal? Something more?
| 132 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:43:50pm |
re: #130 NJDhockeyfan
I heard another theory tonight. Israel has been training their military with war games, Netanyahu recently visited Russia, and now this surprise with the missile shields. Could this have been a deal to allow Israel to attack Iran? That would be a genius move for Obama.
NJ, you are a man with a very active imagination.
| 133 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:44:05pm |
re: #130 NJDhockeyfan
I heard another theory tonight. Israel has been training their military with war games, Netanyahu recently visited Russia, and now this surprise with the missile shields. Could this have been a deal to allow Israel to attack Iran? That would be a genius move for Obama.
You, my friend, have a very fertile mind.
| 134 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:44:36pm |
re: #132 The Shadow Do
NJ, you are a man with a very active imagination.
Not my idea. I heard it on the radio this evening. I do like it though.
| 135 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:45:36pm |
Little Johnnie Strikes Again…
The teacher asked the class to use the word ‘fascinate’ in a sentence.
Molly put up her hand and said, ‘My family went to my granddad’s farm, and we all saw his pet sheep. It was fascinating.’
The teacher said, ‘That was good, but I wanted you to use the word fascinate, not fascinating’.
Sally raised her hand. She said, ‘My family went to see Rock City and I was fascinated.’
The teacher said, ‘Well, that was good Sally, but I wanted you to use the word ‘fascinate.’
Little Johnny raised his hand.
The teacher hesitated because she had been burned by Little Johnny before.
She finally decided there was no way he could damage the word ‘fascinate’, so she called on him for his offering.
Johnny said, ‘My aunt Gina has a sweater with ten buttons, but her tits are so big she can only fasten eight.’
The teacher sat down and cried…
| 136 |
lurking faith Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:45:38pm |
re: #114 Dark_Falcon
Too late, he’s been shown the door. That’s our fourth flounce of the night.
Shiny!
| 137 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:45:40pm |
re: #89 Kilroy
I miss your point or get it. The plan was to protect Eastern Europe? Now that is ended is it a victory for Putin?
I think it was silly provocation from the beginning. The Bush plan was to defend against a threat that didn’t exist. *This* plan defends against a potential threat that could *really* exist in the near future if the Iranians continue to enrich their uranium more that 4%, which is fuel grade. Apparently, that is all they have done so far. And the only delivery systems they have are short and intermediate range missiles. The thought that they would attack eastern Europe or North America was laughable on its face.
With the Russians on board as happy allies against further Iranian enrichment, pressure on the Iranians increases. That’s a good thing.
This plan deters the Iranians from launching on our middle east allies (read: Israel) because it provides a credible threat to destroy incoming missiles from reaching short range targets (read: Israel). Which is all they’ve got, even if they develop nukes.
| 138 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:45:49pm |
Even Vince Flynn couldn’t come up with something that crazy
| 140 |
Salamantis Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:46:57pm |
re: #130 NJDhockeyfan
I heard another theory tonight. Israel has been training their military with war games, Netanyahu recently visited Russia, and now this surprise with the missile shields. Could this have been a deal to allow Israel to attack Iran? That would be a genius move for Obama.
I’ll believe this might be the scenario when we sell Israel our new state of the art bigger better bunker busting bombs. Even so, it will be hard as hell for Israel, acting alone, to hit everything in Iran that needs hitting to crimp their atomic stylings.
| 141 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:47:29pm |
re: #134 NJDhockeyfan
Not my idea. I heard it on the radio this evening. I do like it though.
I don’t think there is a snowballs chance in hell for Russian cooperation on anything. There is zero evidence of that. Russia is a thug country and will not play ball in any diplomatic sense. Nukes and missile defense for Iran suddenly reversed? What is the chance of that.
| 142 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:47:35pm |
| 145 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:49:21pm |
| 146 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:49:34pm |
re: #140 Salamantis
I’ll believe this might be the scenario when we sell Israel our new state of the art bigger better bunker busting bombs.
Unless Israel has some new weapons we don’t know about.
Even so, it will be hard as hell for Israel, acting alone, to hit everything in Iran that needs hitting to crimp their atomic stylings.
That’s true. I don’t think Obama has the stones to help with an attack.
| 147 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:49:51pm |
re: #142 austin_blue
See my 137.
Damn it! Only the faithful get the unicorns. I thought we were beyond that.
| 148 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:50:04pm |
re: #144 redshirt
Russia is on board? With what?
Afghanistan — allegedly. Of course I am not familiar with the background on that.
| 149 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:51:14pm |
New to the world. Russia ain’t on board with shit that benefits the West. Shocking, I know.
| 150 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:52:00pm |
re: #137 austin_blue
I can’t tell. Are you downplaying possibility of Iranian missiles reaching US…from Venezuela? Seems to be the likely launch site if they want to strike us.
| 151 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:52:24pm |
re: #137 austin_blue
I’d argue it was an effort to draw a firm line with Russia. It’s that they tend to consider that provocative, but I don’t care. Russia needs to learn that boundaries apply both ways.
| 152 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:52:29pm |
re: #145 austin_blue
Wait and see.
??? Well, I guess you got me there. Hope you are right.
Not holding my breath.
Obama is nowhere Putin’s equal.
| 153 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:52:38pm |
re: #149 The Shadow Do
New to the world. Russia ain’t on board with shit that benefits the West. Shocking, I know.
I hope Obama didn’t get taken to the cleaners by the Russians. I do not believe we did it for nothing. I wonder what we are supposed to get in return?
| 154 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:53:29pm |
re: #146 NJDhockeyfan
All he’d have to do is stay out of the way- like the snipers taking out those pirates.
| 155 |
Salamantis Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:53:41pm |
re: #127 The Shadow Do
“At the same time, Russia’s top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.”
As of now. I still retain hopes that this statement will be rendered no longer operative in the near to mid term future. The Russians would not want to change their stance immediately, because that would be to publicly tip the quid pro quo hand.
I do not underestimate the power of Iran to fuck up so badly that the Russians are forced to reconsider it. Continuing to pursue just such a nuclear weapons program, and having it continuously brought to light, is just such a fuck up.
| 156 |
Kilroy Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:53:47pm |
re: #143 swamprat
I’m still having problems with spell Czech.
| 157 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:53:56pm |
re: #147 The Shadow Do
Damn it! Only the faithful get the unicorns. I thought we were beyond that.
Mine is pink with pale blue stripes. The horn is mother of pearl. It grazes in the back yard and it’s poo is the finest fertilizer on the planet. Everything is perfect, and nothing hurts. I don’t even need health insurance.
| 158 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:55:28pm |
re: #152 redshirt
??? Well, I guess you got me there. Hope you are right.
Not holding my breath.
Obama is nowhere Putin’s equal.
Interesting. Putting the Russian president over the President of the United States of America. I might not have the greatest of confidence but I know where my loyalty stands — and it’s not with Putin even on a theoretical basis.
| 159 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:55:41pm |
Maybe we get to use Pooty Poots timeshare on the Bering sea?
| 160 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:55:41pm |
re: #153 NJDhockeyfan
I hope Obama didn’t get taken to the cleaners by the Russians. I do not believe we did it for nothing. I wonder what we are supposed to get in return?
Posted this earlier:
ANALYSIS-US firms, others may gain from shield pullback
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric (GE.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) as well as TPG TPG.UL, one of the world’s largest private equity firms [ID:nLH503244
I know this is shocking, but these firms are major Dem contributors. Nothin’ to it I’m sure.
| 161 |
Racer X Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:56:08pm |
Anagrams:
Dormitory = Dirty Room
Dictionary = Indicatory
Schoolmaster = The classroom
Elvis = Lives
Listen = Silent
Clint Eastwood = Old West Action
Madam Curie = Radium came
A telephone girl = Repeating “Hello”
The country side = No City Dust Here
Evangelist = Evil’s Agent
| 162 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:56:28pm |
re: #155 Salamantis
As of now. I still retain hopes that this statement will be rendered no longer operative in the near to mid term future. The Russians would not want to change their stance immediately, because that would be to publicly tip the quid pro quo hand.
I do not underestimate the power of Iran to fuck up so badly that the Russians are forced to reconsider it. Continuing to pursue just such a nuclear weapons program, and having it continuously brought to light, is just such a fuck up.
Iran has Achmadinajad, a man who defines “fuck up”.
| 163 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:17pm |
re: #150 timhinhou
I can’t tell. Are you downplaying possibility of Iranian missiles reaching US…from Venezuela? Seems to be the likely launch site if they want to strike us.
What? So if the Venezuelans get Iranian missile tech (which cannot reach the US), they will immediately get the nukes as well? Which cannot reach the US?
Brain lock…
| 164 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:21pm |
re: #155 Salamantis
As of now. I still retain hopes that this statement will be rendered no longer operative in the near to mid term future. The Russians would not want to change their stance immediately, because that would be to publicly tip the quid pro quo hand.
I do not underestimate the power of Iran to fuck up so badly that the Russians are forced to reconsider it. Continuing to pursue just such a nuclear weapons program, and having it continuously brought to light, is just such a fuck up.
Why in the world would anyone be surprised that Russia would support a nuclear Iran. They are an ally for crying out loud. To think otherwise qualifies as wishful.
| 165 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:22pm |
re: #158 Gus 802
Interesting. Putting the Russian president over the President of the United States of America. I might not have the greatest of confidence but I know where my loyalty stands — and it’s not with Putin even on a theoretical basis.
I mean it in boxing terms. Russia is nowhere the equal of the United States.
| 166 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:27pm |
re: #155 Salamantis
As of now. I still retain hopes that this statement will be rendered no longer operative in the near to mid term future. The Russians would not want to change their stance immediately, because that would be to publicly tip the quid pro quo hand.
I do not underestimate the power of Iran to fuck up so badly that the Russians are forced to reconsider it. Continuing to pursue just such a nuclear weapons program, and having it continuously brought to light, is just such a fuck up.
I hope the Russian understand that they are also a target of nuke-armed terrorists if Iran starts giving bombs to the various terror organizations. I do believe Iran wont hesitate to do something like that either.
| 167 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:57pm |
re: #30 Gus 802
So, wait. Are you saying that the doctrine of missile defense has shifted strategies, and not been canceled all together?
Why, that would mean that people who claim missile defense plans have been scrapped are lying for political points.
/Well! I never!
| 168 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:57:58pm |
For an example of how Eastern European nations were the force within NATO that agitated for and stood up for “pro freedom, pro democracy” policies, read this article from the Georgian crisis:
[Link: www.eubusiness.com…]
Divisions over the crisis in Georgia has pointed up a weakness in the European Union, former Polish president Lech Walesa said in an interview publshed Wednesday.
The conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia “is a problem that reveals Europe’s Achille’s heel,” Walesa told the Corriere della Sera daily.
“You cannot have the (EU) presidency (France) act in one way and other heads of state go in the opposite direction,” Walesa said, referring to a visit to Tbilisi last week by the pro-Georgia leaders of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.
They said a peace plan proposed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy did not provide sufficient protection for Georgia.
Russia “will end up weakened” by the conflict only if Western countries can show “international solidarity,” said Walesa, who founded Poland’s anti-communist Solidarity trade union movement in 1980.
Walesa added that Russia, “with its provocative attitude, has lost a great deal of respect in the West, and the more they drag their feet (on withdrawing from Georgia), the more their image will suffer.”
Commenting on a deal to deploy part of a US missile shield on Polish territory, signed in Warsaw on Wednesday, Walesa said it would be “beneficial for the economy and the security” of his country.
| 169 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:59:17pm |
re: #167 Slumbering Behemoth
So, wait. Are you saying that the doctrine of missile defense has shifted strategies, and not been canceled all together?
Why, that would mean that people who claim missile defense plans have been scrapped are lying for political points.
/Well! I never!
Right. Funny coming from the same people that want to scrap NATO.
| 170 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:59:47pm |
re: #151 Dark_Falcon
I’d argue it was an effort to draw a firm line with Russia. It’s that they tend to consider that provocative, but I don’t care. Russia needs to learn that boundaries apply both ways.
I don’t disagree, DF, but this new plan works all the way around. It addresses the *actual* threat and takes the volume down in eastern Europe. Not a bad thing.
| 171 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:01:37pm |
This isn’t about Iran launching and hitting the US.
It is about Iran launching. Regardless of where they aim and whether they hit or not, it results in a Gulf that is closed for business and oil at $300 a barrel for a while.
| 172 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:01:42pm |
re: #157 austin_blue
Mine is pink with pale blue stripes. The horn is mother of pearl. It grazes in the back yard and it’s poo is the finest fertilizer on the planet. Everything is perfect, and nothing hurts. I don’t even need health insurance.
If only I could garner Obama’s favor. Instead I shall cower in my muddy hovel and hope for deliverence. Maybe my dog who just dropped a big brown one in my house will transcend his present circumstance and become pink and blue, and, and, perfected!
| 173 |
Salamantis Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:04:58pm |
Iran is positioned at Russia’s vulnerable southern underbelly. I do not think they are irrational enough to desire a sizeable nation in that geographical location espousing a fanatical variant of Islam to obtain nuclear weapons.
What they are doing is either depending upon the West to stop them, sacrificing blood, treasure, and global goodwill in the process, or using the threat of doing so as a means by which to extract concessions from the West. But since they stand to lose so much should Iran actually obtain these weapons, it’s a dangerous (to them as well as to us) game of geopolitical chicken that they are playing.
| 174 |
karmic_inquisitor Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:05:53pm |
Obama and Medvedev meet on the 23rd in New York. That is why this news hit today.
[Link: news.xinhuanet.com…]
| 175 |
The Shadow Do Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:06:10pm |
re: #173 Salamantis
Iran is positioned at Russia’s vulnerable southern underbelly. I do not think they are irrational enough to desire a sizeable nation in that geographical location espousing a fanatical variant of Islam to obtain nuclear weapons.
What they are doing is either depending upon the West to stop them, sacrificing blood, treasure, and global goodwill in the process, or using the threat of doing so as a means by which to extract concessions from the West. But since they stand to lose so much should Iran actually obtain these weapons, it’s a dangerous (to them as well as to us) game of geopolitical chicken that they are playing.
The Russians are about money. They really don’t give a shit, sad to say.
| 176 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:08:07pm |
re: #165 redshirt
I mean it in boxing terms. Russia is nowhere the equal of the United States.
No, but with Venezuela as a staging base. Russia could launch TU-160 attacks against the Continental US. Our air defenses aren’t that good anymore and a few non-nuclear cruise missiles could do us great damage. Russia could hurt us a great deal without using nukes.
| 177 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:08:28pm |
OK here is a crazy idea. Russia is propping up Iran hoping that they will do something stupid.
When they do, they will make a big show of sweeping into the army “To defend the world from evil”.
They will then park and stay there until they pump the country dry.
I’ve heard stupider…
| 178 |
Fenway_Nation Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:09:24pm |
re: #177 redshirt
That’s kinda stupid since the Russians already have enormous oil reserves themselves…
| 179 |
austin_blue Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:10:12pm |
re: #172 The Shadow Do
If only I could garner Obama’s favor. Instead I shall cower in my muddy hovel and hope for deliverence. Maybe my dog who just dropped a big brown one in my house will transcend his present circumstance and become pink and blue, and, and, perfected!
Embrace the unicorn! It protects me against germs and all enemies, foreign and domestic! It is the bastion of the Constitution!
When ATF agents enquire about my rifle and my shotgun, my unicorn demands a warrant!
When my neighbors turn me in to the Department of Homeland Security as an enabler of Al Queda, because I’m a Texas democrat (small d) my unicorn demands probable cause!
I love my unicorn.
| 180 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:10:12pm |
re: #163 austin_blue
You are correct on the current standing of Iranian missile technology but too often decisions have been made by our leaders which do not take into account the longer term impacts of their decisions. I don’t want this to be one of those failures. That is where my concern lies. You may call it brain lock but I’d like to think about the big picture.
| 181 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:10:42pm |
re: #178 Fenway_Nation
That’s kinda stupid since the Russians already have enormous oil reserves themselves…
They also get some shiny new warm water ports.
And I never said it was a clever idea.
| 182 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:12:25pm |
re: #176 Dark_Falcon
No, but with Venezuela as a staging base. Russia could launch TU-160 attacks against the Continental US. Our air defenses aren’t that good anymore and a few non-nuclear cruise missiles could do us great damage. Russia could hurt us a great deal without using nukes.
Well yes, they could hurt us. Hell, look what al queda did.
Use any measure to compare the 2 countries and US comes out on top.
| 183 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:17:04pm |
re: #182 redshirt
Well yes, they could hurt us. Hell, look what al queda did.
Use any measure to compare the 2 countries and US comes out on top.
I know. But they’ve got enough power to make think twice about crowding them. And with that, I seem to have brought myself around to austin’s position. Awkward…
| 184 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:18:18pm |
re: #180 timhinhou
You are correct on the current standing of Iranian missile technology but too often decisions have been made by our leaders which do not take into account the longer term impacts of their decisions. I don’t want this to be one of those failures. That is where my concern lies. You may call it brain lock but I’d like to think about the big picture.
I want to know why the Czech and Polish governments weren’t notified about the decision until this morning. Congress wasn’t told till this morning as well. If you were a country in Europe how would you feel today?
| 185 |
Gus Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:18:24pm |
re: #25 swamprat
Everything is fine.
Here is Chavez on a shopping trip to Russia. (missiles and tanks)
And here is Russia selling MIGs to Syria.
And of course, here is Russia acting in a not-so-purely defensive manner.
Iran is becoming nuclear.
So is North Korea, and they make these darling missiles!
What could possibly go wrong?
Pravda links? They look about right regardless.
Here, read this:
U.S. leads world in foreign weapons sales: report
U.S. weapons sales jumped nearly 50 percent in 2008 despite the global economic recession to $37.8 billion from $25.4 billion the year before.
The jump defied worldwide trends as global arms sales fell 7.6 percent to $55.2 billion in 2008, the report said. Global weapons agreements were at their lowest level since 2005.
Which is a good thing in my opinion.
| 186 |
sagehen Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:20:18pm |
re: #131 Locker
Interesting. Why would Russia make that deal? Trade deal? Something more?
Wild guess?
Because for all Russia’s wealth and natural resources, they’re a little light on tech-savvy. Especially since a whole generation of their best made aliyah. If Israel is willing to put some R&D on offer, they’ve got a lot to offer.
| 187 |
timhinhou Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:21:48pm |
re: #184 NJDhockeyfan
This is the kind of stuff that baffles me. We turn our backs on allies who have stuck their necks out in an attempt to appease the Russians…and for what? It is this sort of short-sighted decision making that undermines us in the long run. Next time we need Pole or Czech support, we’d better not hold our breath.
| 188 |
Reginald Perrin Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:32:27pm |
Charles:
You and your readers may get a laugh out of this photo.
It might be a good idea to delete this post so we can keep this a secret until I have something ready to post. This is not the first time this pretzel logic has been used.
| 189 |
redshirt Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:33:41pm |
re: #183 Dark_Falcon
I know. But they’ve got enough power to make think twice about crowding them. And with that, I seem to have brought myself around to austin’s position. Awkward…
I’m reminded of the presidential debates. McCain showed such superior knowledge of the region, it’s history, and the players. Obama just is clueless about how to go about things. Even if this is the right move, it was handled very poorly. You just don’t treat allies like that.
| 191 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:34:36pm |
re: #189 redshirt
I’m reminded of the presidential debates. McCain showed such superior knowledge of the region, it’s history, and the players. Obama just is clueless about how to go about things. Even if this is the right move, it was handled very poorly. You just don’t treat allies like that.
Quite Concur.
| 192 |
Reginald Perrin Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:35:06pm |
It’s already been taken down
go upstairs and tell Charles
| 193 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:39:46pm |
re: #192 Reginald Perrin
It’s already been taken down
go upstairs and tell Charles
Upon reflection, I’d recommend not posting that. Rodan did get rid of it after being asked to do by members of his own blog. I’d let that one slide but keep it filed away for future use.
| 194 |
Wendya Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:56:20pm |
re: #127 The Shadow Do
At the same time, Russia’s top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.
Nice to see how the whole world loves and respects us now.
| 195 |
dwells38 Thu, Sep 17, 2009 10:59:50pm |
re: #10 austin_blue
Austin Blue, I’ve seen no evidence yet we’ve brokered any deal with the Russians in regards to Iran. Can you point to a link?
Also are you suggestnig President Obama’s decision on this was a wily feint allowing us to better protect Israel and hence, shoring up tattered relations there? Interesting!
We are broke after all and it makes sense that O’s plan to take us in a socialistic direction would necessarily include our needing to reduce expenditures on this gigantic projection of power we’ve always prioritized in order to make way for new priorities.
Are you slamming missile defense technology? It has had some recent successes. I wouldn’t discount it completely.
| 196 |
dwells38 Thu, Sep 17, 2009 11:11:54pm |
re: #10 austin_blue
Also what do you think of the fact that Obama seems to be unconcerned about helping to protect the democratic gov’ts in the region and in Europe. Who’s next? Taiwan?
Do you think he feels as though they have no where else to go (but toward the US)? If they love freedom they certainly can’t embrace China, Russia or the Islamic powers.
And in the case of the new democratic gov’ts in the region whether or not it’s strategically smart is it right?
| 197 |
Barflytom Fri, Sep 18, 2009 12:40:41am |
So the president said, after “blah blah blah”, that he would continue to use “strong diplomacy” against the Iranian nuclear missile threat. Wow, that should do the trick. And reneging on an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union invading Poland, won’t do any damage to America’s standing in the world ? If anyone tries to justify this on some technical argument they need to be sent back to elementary school. He was confronted by Putin, and he caved in. That’s all there is to it. He’s emulating JFK in a way that his liberal apologists perhaps didn’t envisage, by bringing about his own “ANTI-missile” crisis.
| 198 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 1:04:16am |
We’re now the biggest per capita contributors of troops in Afghanistan (we’re very small nation so absolute numbers are small). Our troops are in Helmand in the thickest of the fighting (unlike many other coalition members). The idea was that if we gave our all to support US, then maybe US might help us with Putin. Obviously we realize we’d never have a blank check, but we hoped that if we’re betrayed it would be for something big. Now it looks like the Poles were sold for nothing. How are we supposed to explain this to the next batch of young men and women we’re sending to Afghanistan to risk life and limb?
I can understand that technical understanding might improve and there might be a better way to deal with Iranian missiles. If so for sure the best way should be employed (although I don’t see even this happening). However the missile shield has for years not been only about Iran, but also Putin’s claim that he has veto power over foreign policy of what he calls his near-abroad. Putin knows the missile defence doesn’t have any impact on Russian missile threat, but having US troops on the soil of Poland means an attack on Poland triggers a near automatic US military response (NATO article 5 is actually quite ambigious and can be weaseled out of). This was the objection Putin had and this is why this is regarded in Russia as a triumph and vindication of the policy of bullying. While Poland is unlikely to suffer immediately from this, it increased the likelihood of Putin reprising last summer’s war in Georgia and to intervene militarily in Crimea and Ukraine. In the worst case this could lead to millions of dead.
| 199 |
Wild Knight Fri, Sep 18, 2009 2:35:18am |
Right, wrong or otherwise I am not in anyway competent to decide. What I do know is that making this announcement on September 17th 2009 is extremely bad form considering what happened to Poland on September 17th 1939 September 17th 1939
| 200 |
Morganfrost Fri, Sep 18, 2009 2:57:26am |
Yes, they’re all wrong. We made a commitment to our allies in Eastern Europe (and it’s not like we’ve got so many allies). Then, we changed our minds in order to gratify the Russians. What’s the outcome? We sacrificed the trust of our friends and won absolutely nothing from our enemies (except, no doubt, a derisive chuckle).
| 201 |
pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 4:21:38am |
They are right in the respect that the sea based missile might be more effective at this time than the land based missile in defending against the current Iranian threat.
However they are wrong in three respects:
Firstly By using the ship based weapon you remove the defense system from any control by the host country. That allows an administration for political reasons to decide not to defend. The Czech’s have very unpleasant living memory of such an action. This is the “realpolik” of the Pauls, Scowcrofts, Brzezinskies and Buchanans of the World. et al. The US has plenty of our own Sir Humphreys.
(Incidentally if you are at all a political junkie and if post here you might be go and watch both Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. It is first rate comedy and the political lessons will be very familiar.)
Secondly you have to also consider the effect such a decision has both politically on the host country that had spent political capital internally and externally to support it and on the people you are trying to deter, and although “officially” this is to protect against Iran, it is also meant to deter Russia. The Pols and the Czechs have pretty long unpleasant memories from recent history on that score. If the word is that the US is not going to back you up, the next time countries are going to think twice about siding with us against the Russians, or any other nearby threat. Thugs can smell weakness a mile away.
Finally as a practical matter it is also possible that the technological or intelligence information might change. The land based option requires an infrastructure. If we have that infrastructure in place if either the threat changes or the land based option becomes more viable we have it in place.
I would be very interested in seeing what the actual mandate was for them to decide. It really depends on the actual question asked concerning this decision. How narrow or how broad was the evaluation that was made?
| 202 |
joshb Fri, Sep 18, 2009 4:59:25am |
Let me give a sports analogy: If you have a player whom you think isn’t worth the cost of his contract anymore, you don’t cut him — the first thing you do is try to trade him for a player who would be useful to you.
The Russians didn’t like the proposed missile shield. They certainly would have come to the table and offered concessions in exchange for the U.S. giving up the shield.
The error isn’t that Obama gave up the proposal. It’s that he had leverage on the Russians and didn’t take advantage of it to extract concessions (or, perhaps, support vis a vis Iran) in exchange for giving it up. GM Obama cut the player for nothing when he could have traded him for something.
And that doesn’t even address the sense of betrayal in Warsaw and Prague. Obama’s a lousy poker player, and not much of an ally either.
| 203 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 5:18:17am |
re: #202 joshb
The error isn’t that Obama gave up the proposal. It’s that he had leverage on the Russians and didn’t take advantage of it to extract concessions (or, perhaps, support vis a vis Iran) in exchange for giving it up. GM Obama cut the player for nothing when he could have traded him for something.
And that doesn’t even address the sense of betrayal in Warsaw and Prague. Obama’s a lousy poker player, and not much of an ally either.
I don’t see any evidence that the missile shield was in fact any kind of “leverage” against Russia, especially when in July the chief of US missile defense was taliking about sharing missile defense capability with Russia. The idea that we are replacing - on the recommendation of the US joint chiefs and other internal military assessment - the earlier proposed shield with ship-based Standards and Aegis - both more nimble and more demonstrably effective - and expanding shield coverage to include Israel - means that the US has more control over a better defense net. That it annoys some countries who stood to benefit from US installations on their soil is both inevitable to any change of plans, and immaterial - they’ll be happy with the protection even if they grumble about the lost US installed infrastructure.
| 204 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 5:31:54am |
Yes, it’s wrong. Iran is not the only threat to stability in the region. India and Pakistan will both gain range in coming decades, and there are several nations in Europe that are nuclear equipped - we can’t predict what turns those nations might take in the future.
Nobody can predict the future, nor who our real allies or enemies will be in 20 years. The Euro missile defense initiative would have made several threat postures and scenarios with several nations that include Russia unlikely.
Longer term there will be another big war, and it’s either going to come in Europe or the subcontinent of Asia. More players will gain nuclear weapons in the future. I’d rather have something in place that makes a limited nuclear exchange and snapshot scenarios untenable.
I really like it however that we are improving our missile defenses at home and changing focus to mideast, (I’ll believe that part when I see it however…) but we really need to do both. The best policy is one that makes limited ICBM launches anywhere militarily untenable.
| 205 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 5:38:21am |
A lot of comments here and other places strike me as wrong-headed.
1. The Cold War is over. Thank god. Russia is not the “enemy.” They are also not a friend. They are, though, a major nuclear power and unnecessarily poking them just for the sake of ticking them off is pretty dangerous stuff. The missiles themselves would have been incapable of intercepting anything from Russia, but the attached powerful radar station could have monitored the entirety of western Russian airspace. That’s what the Russians found most objectionable.
2. McCain’s neo-Cold War posturing would probably have gotten us into a major nuclear exchange with Russia already, and had he been president in 2008 many of us would likely be dead as a result of Georgia’s stupidity in attacking Ossetia. McCain’s views on Russia are stupid, stupid, stupid.
3. The now-scrapped land based missile plan was hated by everyone involved, but particularly by the Polish and Czech people. If anything, this *increases* support for the U.S. in those two countries.
4. Russia’s foreign policy is not motivated by hatred of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is still pretty popular in Russia despite everything. Russia is motivated by self interest and a desire for respect. The way to their “heart” is to convince them that following our lead is in their self-interest, and that we give them a modicum of respect as the second largest nuclear power on earth. We can and should disagree with some of Russia’s foreign policies, but jabbing them in the eye with a stick just for the hell of it drives them further towards those that really are our sworn enemies.
| 206 |
MPH Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:05:52am |
Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:35:32 pm
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]
Capitulating to Russia — never mind that we received NOTHING in return — is morally abhorrent, given the promises made to our allies.
When I was in Albania, a number of people asked me what I thought of President Obama. I told them to wait and see but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him sell Eastern Europe down the river to Russia. That didn’t take long…and for what?
| 207 |
zipity Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:11:51am |
Yes, yes they are… Anything else you need to know Charles?
| 208 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:12:17am |
re: #206 MPH
“Capitlating to Russia”? Don’t you think that’s a little overblown? Deciding to deploy a better, more nimble missile defense, more quickly, covering a wider range of allies, and more fully under our control since they’re not based on foreign soil, is somehow capitulating? And to what exactly? Are we engaged in another Cold War?
| 209 |
Bob Levin Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:13:55am |
I don’t know if the joint chiefs made the decision because of genuine strategic reasons or because the President has made it clear that he only wants opinions which agree with him. Are these the same men that wanted the shield in the first place?
| 210 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:14:40am |
re: #209 Bob Levin
I don’t know if the joint chiefs made the decision because of genuine strategic reasons or because the President has made it clear that he only wants opinions which agree with him. Are these the same men that wanted the shield in the first place?
Yeah. The Joint Chiefs are pussies.
| 211 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:18:22am |
re: #208 Coracle
I’m with MPH on this one. Putin is ex KGB, reporters are turning up dead who oppose him and Eastern Europe’s memories of Soviet occupation are only one generation past.
Add to that Russia’s aid to Iran and now Chavez I’d say it’s not yet a new cold war, but it worth paying attention and acting accordingly.
| 212 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:22:21am |
re: #211 Pingemi
I’m with MPH on this one. Putin is ex KGB, reporters are turning up dead who oppose him and Eastern Europe’s memories of Soviet occupation are only one generation past.
Add to that Russia’s aid to Iran and now Chavez I’d say it’s not yet a new cold war, but it worth paying attention and acting accordingly.
You can have your New Cold War fantasy if you want. Hell, you may even be right. I don’t have access to CIA or KGB mind reading satellites.
But even so, don’t you think a better, more flexible and faster deployed missile shield is a good thing?
| 213 |
joshb Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:24:57am |
re: #203 Coracle
I don’t see any evidence that the missile shield was in fact any kind of “leverage” against Russia, especially when in July the chief of US missile defense was taliking about sharing missile defense capability with Russia. The idea that we are replacing - on the recommendation of the US joint chiefs and other internal military assessment - the earlier proposed shield with ship-based Standards and Aegis - both more nimble and more demonstrably effective - and expanding shield coverage to include Israel - means that the US has more control over a better defense net. That it annoys some countries who stood to benefit from US installations on their soil is both inevitable to any change of plans, and immaterial - they’ll be happy with the protection even if they grumble about the lost US installed infrastructure.
If the US had no leverage on this issue, then why was Russia demanding that the US not deploy this system? And why did Putin today praise the US for not deploying the system? I guess it might have been a complicated Russian bluff, but I think the simpler explanation makes more sense — the intense Russian opposition means that the US could have extracted something in exchange for giving this up.
| 214 |
MPH Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:27:30am |
re: #211 Pingemi
I’m with MPH on this one. Putin is ex KGB, reporters are turning up dead who oppose him and Eastern Europe’s memories of Soviet occupation are only one generation past.
Add to that Russia’s aid to Iran and now Chavez I’d say it’s not yet a new cold war, but it worth paying attention and acting accordingly.
and what else do you need to know? besides the fact that…
We subverted written agreements with our allies — in exchange for the hope that Russia plays nice with us on Iran and China and Venezuela?
Even the Washington Post is blasting the president over this.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]
You know why other countries don’t trust the US on the foreign stage??? Bullshit like this… We did it to Lebanon in the 80’s…look where that’s gotten us.
| 215 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:28:15am |
re: #213 joshb
If the US had no leverage on this issue, then why was Russia demanding that the US not deploy this system? And why did Putin today praise the US for not deploying the system? I guess it might have been a complicated Russian bluff, but I think the simpler explanation makes more sense — the intense Russian opposition means that the US could have extracted something in exchange for giving this up.
That’s based on two assumptions - The first is that “opposition” was anything more than words. The second is that there was nothing, in fact, extracted in exchange.
You simply cannot know either of those conclusively. But feel free to assume away.
| 216 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:30:34am |
re: #212 Coracle
It may well be and you might in tough economic times make an even stronger case for it. But in terms of what the shift means it will likely not be an effective deterrent.
Now a smart compromise would be to build some of the infrastructure in the countries so that if either the situation changes or the technology shifts toward a land based option it can be quickly deployed.
Now if the situation changes he have to use the same diplomatic capital all over again with bad memories thrown in the mix. Remember the Sultan Omar and the Reshadieh incident. To the British Empire it seemed trivial but it helped push Turkey into the Central Power fold.
You don’t want to have to spend Political Capital twice for the same thing.
Hmmm… I think I’ll cross post that on my own blog.
| 217 |
JoshB Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:30:35am |
re: #215 Coracle
That’s based on two assumptions - The first is that “opposition” was anything more than words. The second is that there was nothing, in fact, extracted in exchange.
You simply cannot know either of those conclusively. But feel free to assume away.
Certainly none of your half-dozen posts contain any assumptions. Not at all.
| 218 |
Bob Levin Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:32:35am |
Didn’t these same advisers want the shield in the first place? It’s possible the President only wants opinions that echo his beliefs.
| 219 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:35:32am |
re: #217 JoshB
Certainly none of your half-dozen posts contain any assumptions. Not at all.
If that is the case we are all on equal footing.
However, it’s not an assumption that Standard missiles have a better track record of interception. It’s not an assumption that ship-borne systems are under better, more reliable US control than ground systems based on foreign soil. It’s not an assumption that Standard-based assets can be deployed faster, and cover the Middle East.
| 220 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:36:25am |
re: #218 Bob Levin
Didn’t these same advisers want the shield in the first place? It’s possible the President only wants opinions that echo his beliefs.
Yeah, They do. Good thing they’re getting a better one.
| 221 |
captdiggs Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:40:27am |
The US just suffered a major blow to its credibility with allies.
There’s no getting around that.
The ramifications can be far wider than most imagine.
How will this effect nuclear proliferation if allies can’t rely on US agreements on missile shield systems? Can Israel or even the arab nations rely on a US promise of a shield umbrella against Iran? Will arab nations feel even more compelled to create their own nuclear deterrent?
Regardless of the technical excuse for this reversal, proving an unreliable ally will come back to haunt the US.
| 222 |
Ali Mentary Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:42:09am |
re: #211 Pingemi
I’m with MPH on this one. Putin is ex KGB, reporters are turning up dead who oppose him and Eastern Europe’s memories of Soviet occupation are only one generation past.
Add to that Russia’s aid to Iran and now Chavez I’d say it’s not yet a new cold war, but it worth paying attention and acting accordingly.
Putin has no strategy whatsoever, and this means that he’s not posing a systemic threat to the USA.
But ha has a lot of power and influence and most of all he has the Siberian methane, so he is the one who will make decisions for the whole of Europe until the eastern french border.
The whole area is heavily dependent on russian gas supplies, because our beautiful leaders cunningly decided to scrap or neutralize any other meaningful alternative energy source. Visit us and hear a a lot about liposuction-propelled cars, clockwork refrigerators and so on …
This means that Europe is lost as soon as Putin decides to take it, he’ll close the gas tap, be it in January or June, and we’ll kneel in a day or two.
The decision of surrendering us to the russki was made by the likes of Gerhard Schröder, not by Obama.
Even though I believe O is, at best, amateurish, the scrapping of the defense of Europe is the right thing to do.
I also believe that he should withdraw from Europe as many of the US military personnel as possible and leave us to scratch our own scabies.
The worst thing that can happen is that he will be able to sell for the right price to the Europeans the safety that is now dearly paid for by the Americans.
| 223 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:43:19am |
re: #219 Coracle
Those things are true in the physical sense but it is a worse deterrent in a political sense. If a country is under actual threat there is little question in the mind of the potential aggressor that it will use a deterrent under it’s own control on it’s own soil.
If the deterrent is not on their own soil then the political will of the guarantor is taken into effect. Europe’s graveyards are full of casualties of the lack of political will.
That’s why US troops South Korea are a more effective deterrent then a promise to deploy troops would be. It’s also why we actually had troops in Europe instead of relying on a nuclear deterrent. Your more likely to stay in the pot if you already have money in it.
| 224 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:45:14am |
re: #205 AngusMcP
McCain’s neo-Cold War posturing would probably have gotten us into a major nuclear exchange with Russia already, and had he been president in 2008 many of us would likely be dead as a result of Georgia’s stupidity in attacking Ossetia.
What a bunch of specious bullshit. If you are going to posit something use reality as a base.
| 225 |
MPH Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:46:50am |
re: #222 Ali Mentary
Putin has no strategy whatsoever, and this means that he’s not posing a systemic threat to the USA.
Huh?
| 226 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:47:47am |
re: #223 Pingemi
It depends on what you’re actually trying to deter. To me the thought of actual Russian military aggression against Poland or the Czech Republic is pretty farfetched. This isn’t 1968 anymore. The real missile threats - such as they are currently - emanate from elsewhere.
As well, anti-missies on the ground won’t stop anyone from turning off a gas main.
| 227 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:51:51am |
re: #225 MPH
heh, I got a good guffaw out of that. Putin has no strategy … what’s this then?
[Link: www.oilonline.com…]
| 228 |
S'latch Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:59:03am |
Are they all wrong? Who knows? They could be. Only time will tell. Or, time may not even speak clearly as to whether they were wrong. It is a judgment that is fairly a subject of reasoned analysis and rational criticism.
| 229 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:59:55am |
re: #224 Thanos
It is based on reality. McCain’s rhetoric in August 2008 was warlike and absurd. He actually called the Georgia-Russia situation the most serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War. Hello? 9/11 anyone? If 9/11 was small potatoes to McCain, yet started two wars, he certainly if President would have started a war over a situation “more serious” than 9/11. Not to mention McCain’s insistence on NATO membership for Georgia would have then mandated the U.S. to join in a war against Russia.
I never thought I’d say it, but thank goodness Bush took the right type of stance on that conflict.
| 230 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:06:10am |
re: #226 Coracle
Let me put it another way:
Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.
Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.
Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.
If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.
| 231 |
Bob Levin Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:06:26am |
Let me try this from a different angle. If the military advisers wanted the missile defense in the first place, and Europe wanted it, then what changed? The facts on the ground are pretty much the same when they recommended it and now that they’ve changed their minds, what could be different? I’d like to know how Eastern Europe feels about this. Other than the fact that there is an official announcement of a policy change, has there been any indication what led to this change? Is it simply that Russia doesn’t want the shield, and perhaps the US is hoping Russia will buy some of the US debt? Frequently this administration makes pronouncements as if by fiat, without going into too much detail about what went into a decision, and in this case a reversal.
| 232 |
harrylook Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:07:18am |
This is an absolutely asinine decision by 0bama. Telegraphs weakness, wavering in the face of criticism, desire to appease the enemy, abandonment of allies. It makes zero sense at a time when our enemies are actively acquiring dangerous missile technology. It’s shocking, even coming from a wimp like 0bama.
| 233 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:10:18am |
re: #227 Thanos
As proof of Russia’s “strategy” you link to an article about Venezuela? Huh? The only way Russia figures into that is they stepped in and sold Venezuela fighters when the U.S. refused to sell more F-16s and F-16 parts.
The only long-term strategy Russia has as such is maintaining their population in the face of a demographic nightmare caused by a terrible economy, outmigration, and awful birth rates. Russia could see its population halved over the next 50 years, which is why it wants Russian-speaking breakaway countries like Ossetia and Abkhazia to be allowed to voluntarily join Russia and boost their population figures. They don’t want places like Georgia, the Ukraine, or Poland. Most Russians hate Georgians, for example, and are glad Georgia is no longer part of the Russian federation.
| 234 |
Ali Mentary Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:11:21am |
re: #227 Thanos
Glad you have fun :-)
I tend to think along these lines:
Strategy = long term
Tactics = short term
Putin has no strategy because he’s choking Europe, he’s heavily lending to Venezuela and is arming with nukes a nation ruled by the very same rednecked creationist clergy that is supporting the Chechen guerrilla from few km away from his very own borders.
As a consequence:
He’ll most probably kick USA far away from his borders in the short term but in the long term he’ll have as good as no money from the same Europe he choked, will have wasted billions in the failing state of Venezuela, and will find himself a nuclear armed Iran to deal with.
Mr. P may have extremely good tactical skills, but I’m not able to see what he does as a strategy for improvement.
In my tiny brains the Chinese communist party looks like the (only) player working with a strategic vision.
| 235 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:15:43am |
Well it’s not as if the Pols thing we’ve sold them out or something. Oh wait:
“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama’s new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.
Being nice to your foes and nasty to friends is a bad deal, you are much more likely to lose the old friend than gain a new one.
| 236 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:16:30am |
re: #230 Pingemi
Coracle, the problem with your scenario is that the missiles in Poland would have remained fully under the control of the United States and the missile base there staffed solely with U.S. military personnel.
| 237 |
harrylook Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:18:37am |
re: #130 NJDhockeyfan
If that’s what this is about, then the plan is genius, and I’m the asshat. Hope you are right.
| 238 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:19:03am |
re: #236 AngusMcP
A valid point but that might not be a permanent situation and even if it is if the goal is actual deterrence then actually being there is a superior deterrence than not.
| 239 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:20:06am |
re: #230 Pingemi
Let me put it another way:
Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.
Unless US missile systems are on US bases, manned by US personnel. Unless I’m wrong and we were planning on selling the systems to the Czechs and Poles the systems don’t belong to them or their chaiin of command. US blood and treasure is absolutely on the line.
Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.
Simply wrong In the case of missile defense, you open fire on a missile, not a nation. Unless you want to say that a missile in flight constitutes sovereign national territory until it hits its target.
Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.
There’s this thing called NATO. We’re part of it.
If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.
We’ll have to disagree on that one.
| 240 |
Coracle Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:23:54am |
re: #232 harrylook
This is an absolutely asinine decision by 0bama. Telegraphs weakness, wavering in the face of criticism, desire to appease the enemy, abandonment of allies. It makes zero sense at a time when our enemies are actively acquiring dangerous missile technology. It’s shocking, even coming from a wimp like 0bama.
Right. Deploying a better system faster is a sign of weakness. I’ll remember that. After I’m done being shocked.
| 241 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:25:39am |
re: #235 Pingemi
Pingemi, in Poland, the President and Prime Minister are from different parties. The President, who has a more ceremonial role, was pro-missile defense. The Prime Minister, who actually governs in Poland, did not want the missile base.
WARSAW (Dow Jones)—The U.S. has revised its plans to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, but Poland continues to talk with the U.S. about ways to improve its own security, said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
After a telephone conversation with the U.S. President Barack Obama Thursday, Tusk told reporters the two countries see an opportunity for closer defense cooperation and added the missile shield negotiations had built greater confidence between Poland and the U.S.
| 242 |
Pingemi Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:33:11am |
re: #241 AngusMcP
Well there is also this from Politico:
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
“Hillary called — and the reason he turned it down was because of protocol,” said a source.
Questions about the exchanges surfaced in the Polish press after Obama reached the Czech prime minister late last night to warn of the policy change, but did not speak to the Pole until this morning. And the static offers a glimpse at the distress beneath the diplomatic facade being offered by Eastern European leaders.
But I’ll just leave it at that and go with Coracle to agree to disagree on this one. For our sakes hopefully he will be right.
| 243 |
harrylook Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:42:59am |
re: #240 Coracle
Right. Deploying a better system faster is a sign of weakness. I’ll remember that. After I’m done being shocked.
You’re right: giving that murderous thug Putin - an enemy of this country and a man who recently invaded an ally - what he wanted, in exchange for nothing does not telegraph weakness. It defines it.
Meanwhile, those who stuck their necks out for us are left holding a burning bag of shit. Why would any of them ever trust us again? I’m asking that seriously…
| 244 |
harrylook Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:47:21am |
BTW, speaking of Putin’s brazen invason of a democratic ally, remember 0bama’s response? Remember how he strode to the podium and read from the teleprompter a strong defense of our friends and a stinging rebuke of our enemy? Yeah, me neither. So maybe I shouldn’t be shocked by this hand-out to Russia.
| 245 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:53:12am |
re: #233 AngusMcP
They’ve sold T-72’s, AK’s, AK factories, Bombers, and Bomber training to Hugo. It’s not “just a few jets” That’s a strategy with longer term affects just as China’s long term cycle of alternately beating then hugging Kim IL is a strategy.
| 246 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:54:10am |
re: #245 Thanos
They’ve sold T-72’s, AK’s, AK factories, Bombers, and Bomber training to Hugo. It’s not “just a few jets” That’s a strategy with longer term affects just as China’s long term cycle of alternately beating then hugging Kim IL is a strategy.
Oops, also advanced air defense systems …
| 247 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:55:09am |
I can only talk about my own small stretch of Northern Europe next to Russia, but I’d describe the general feeling here as dumbfounded. The Russians are celebrating and portraying this as a major victory. In every poll I’ve seen on the topic (and yes they poll this in Russia) USA has been in the top 10 list of enemies of Russia (while Germany is usually on the top 10 list of friends). For a lot of Russians this is about regaining the empire and this was a major step in achieving this. Effectively Putin has won the argument that he has a final say on what can be deployed in Poland.
I’ve already seen one “the masters are back” comment and I expect to see a lot more of them. I expect a rebound of various nostalgy parties who don’t want to democracy and who were already reaping benefits from the poor economic situation. While I don’t expect them to get much anywhere here I think in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary and Latvia things could deteriorate fast. Ukraine will either rejoing Russia’s block in the next two years or devolve into civil war.
| 248 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:55:24am |
re: #234 Ali Mentary
Building up an ally who can destabilize the Americas is a strategy. Undermining the Monroe Doctrine by bits and pieces is a strategy.
| 249 |
Randall Gross Fri, Sep 18, 2009 7:56:30am |
Here’s a hint for all the Russia kissers here: They still have ICBM’s and launch solutions for the US.
| 251 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 8:08:04am |
Angus, its a long standing tradition here that in polls people oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 90%, but parties who support bringing our troops home fail to pass even the 5% margin. This is because the wars are opposed on principle like everywhere else in Europe, continued participation is seen as necessary security guarantee. Most likely the same applies to attitudes regarding the missile defence systems. In Poland attitudes changed overnight after the Georgian war. Before that everybody thought that Russian military attack is a far fetched idea - now it is demonstratably a reality to be taken account. Also the manner and timing of this couldn’t have been worse. The fact that Polish government had to see it first on WSJ on the anniversary of Soviet attack certainly looks like a huge slap in the face.
At this point I cannot see how it would be politically feasible for Poland or pretty much any US ally in the region to maintain operations in Afganistan.
| 252 |
Political Atheist Fri, Sep 18, 2009 8:53:31am |
Does the Polish Czek defense heads agree with our Sec def? Just wondering.
| 253 |
bruxellesblog Fri, Sep 18, 2009 9:17:59am |
Charles, you ask if everyone is wrong about this? That isn’t the issue. I think it is said best by Zbigniew Brzezinski:
[Link: www.thedailybeast.com…]
Does scrapping the missile program weaken our defense options in Europe vis-à-vis the Russians?
Not at all. What is left is militarily sounder. It gives the U.S. more options while still enhancing America’s ability to develop more effective defense systems, which is what the Russians really dislike. But now they have less of an excuse to bitch about it.What about the way we informed our allies of our decision?
The way it was conveyed to the Czechs and Poles could not have been worse. It involved [laughs] waking up the Czech prime minster after midnight with a sudden phone call from President Obama. The Polish prime minister was at least allowed to sleep late. But as far as Poland was concerned, unfortunately, poor staff work did not alert the United States that today, September 17, is a particularly painful anniversary for Poland. In 1939, the Poles were still fighting the Germans when on September 17 the Russians stabbed them in the back. To the Poles, that is something very painful. And since they misconstrued—and I emphasize the word “misconstrue”—that the missile shield somehow strengthened their relationship with the U.S. when it comes to Russia, it was immediately suggestive of the notion of a sellout. It’s the wrong conclusion, but in politics, even wrong conclusions have to be anticipated.
I’m getting damn tired of amateur hour at the white house.
| 254 |
AngusMcP Fri, Sep 18, 2009 9:26:42am |
BTW, speaking of Putin’s brazen invason of a democratic ally, remember 0bama’s response?
You mean Obama’s sanity in correctly denouncing both sides given that Georgia started the whole thing by launching an invasion of Ossetia? That was exactly the correct response: a pox on both of their houses. And calling Georgia “democratic” is a stretch given their strict control of the press and crackdowns on opposition. Russia was a bad actor in this, but Georgia was guilty as heck of ill intentions as well.
Kitty, public opinion polls taken after the Georgia-Russia conflict showed Polish and Czech public opinion running against the missile installations. In both countries, less than 25% supported the missile defense.
Polish
Czech
How is this some awful betrayal that supposedly will turn Poles and Czechs against us when the Poles and Czechs didn’t want the missiles?
| 255 |
Alan K. Henderson Fri, Sep 18, 2009 9:42:38am |
Obama uttered the phrase “cost-effective” twice. Yeah, right. Obama is to cost effectiveness what PETA is to steakhouses.
| 256 |
Greengolem64 Fri, Sep 18, 2009 9:56:32am |
re: #38 Locker
OT: Is the LGF spell checker racist because it still puts a red line under Obama??
/sarc
/double and triple sarc
What if it was a BLUE line???
/o^o
| 257 |
captkirk35 Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:22:20am |
Seems like a good move to me, and if the military backs this move, then I’m all for it. People need to quit hyperventilating about any all things that come out of this administration. Quit acting like the Left when Bush was in office, and having a knee-jerk reaction against the president. When he makes a good move, acknowledge it. When he screws up, call him out. But lose the partisan edge, which is killing this country.
| 258 |
drcordell Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:22:28am |
The entire concept of “missile defense” is a complete and utter joke when it comes to protecting against Russian missiles. Even if their warheads were able to be intercepted, which the latest MIRVs aren’t, they have so many it would be a moot point. If Russia really wants to get rowdy and nuke Eastern Europe, nothing is stopping them.
Iran or a terror-state that builds up single missile capabilities, that’s a different nut altogether. But that doesn’t seem to be the main focus of all the hubub surrounding this decision. Mostly it’s about how we are “abandoning”
our allies Poland and the Czech Republic.
| 259 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:28:59am |
Angus, I suppose we’ll see how the Poles will take this. I think they will consider this as huge betrayal. I’ve seen some very devastated faces today and I’m not in Poland. Personally I’m just distraught and very depressed. A few years back we were overjoyed with entering NATO as we thought this would mean that war would not be an option for the foreseeable future here, but today I realize NATO means much much less than we hoped back then.
I also think you’re wrong on Georgia. While Georgia is far from being a democratic poster child it was making considerable steps in the right direction. You are oversimplifying the situation by calling it an invasion of Ossetia and not mentioning the Russian forces poised for attack.
We’ll see if Georgia can continue its democratization process in the next elections. I was hopeful, but today will be a major blow there as well. What’s the point of striving for democracy if you get slapped with economic sanctions by Putin for it and turned out to the cold by Obama? It would be much easier not to to try and just build a nice little personal princedom like all the neighbours are.
| 260 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:38:59am |
drcordell. This was missile defence issue only with respect to Iran. With respect to Poles, Czechs, Russia and the rest of the region this was a test of what NATO is and whether Putin has veto. Polish and Czech governments had to spend considerable political capital to actually make it happen (Poland had a quick turnaround when Russia invaded Georgia last summer) and now it turns out they did this for nothing. And for the whole region it looks like that Obama has conceded to Putin who now seems to hold veto over our foreign policies. Putin has already come up with the next item on his demands list.
The bigger problem is that there are pockets of people throughout the region who yearn for a simpler time when party membership was all that matters. They get a major boost, because they can show that those who believed in US keeping its commitments in the region were clearly wrong, they can also claim with some apparent merit that the lives lost in wars supporting the US (and the wars were never popular, Afganistan in particular was very unpopular due to its old connotations) were effectively wasted.
| 261 |
jpkoch Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:59:29am |
This deal was done in secret between Russia and the US. Poland and the Czech Republic were not notified until after midnight of the 16th. Originally, the missile defense deal did not include Russia at all. One can imagine thier shock.
Charles, this is pure politics. One cannot know what the future holds. We may need some friends in Eastern Europe in the future. Both Poland and Czech believed this missile defense was well worth the money. They also have combat soldiers in Afghanistan. I really believe that they considered the US a close ally; and as a consequence we could count on their vote and loyalty concerning a multitude of issues. But not anymore. This is one of larger diplomatic snafus I’ve seen in decades.
The President has shown a propensity of “dissing” allies (forcing the UK to take Uighur terrorists into its Bermuda protectorate; constantly scolding Israel over its settlements; and now this).
Funny how this summer Korea, Japan and China have entered into trade talks without even consulting the US, and PM Netanyahu visited Moscow to unilaterally open talks concerning Russian sales of missile defense equipment to Iran (it appears this isn’t high on Clinton’s list). Our allies are sensing our weakness and acting accordingly.
What is even more mystifying is Obama’s giving away a huge negotiating tool before talks have even begun. Doesn’t he know any history? Does anyone at Foggy Bottom realize that one doesn’t give away a huge bargaining chip before talks even open? Will Obama be surprised when the Russians come back next month demanding more concessions? Will he be shocked when Russian tanks gobble up the remainder of Georgia, or when Putin shuts off the natural gas supplies to Europe this Winter? Will the President be shocked when we find that Russia has in fact sold Iran surface-to-air missles? Will Obama even care? Can he ever see past his own reflection in the mirror?
| 262 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:10:08am |
Russia didn’t wait until next month to demand more concession. Putin has already made the demands today in Sotchi.
1. Force Georgia to allow Russia into WTO
2. Remove Russia from the export restrictions list.
There are more demands just waiting
| 263 |
jpkoch Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:14:10am |
re: #257 capt kirk35
Capt Kirk,
This is a small scale diplomatic disaster. It goes beyond missile defense. The original deal was brokered between Poland, Czech Republic, and the US. Russia had nothing to do with it. You don’t renege on deals like this without going through the normal diplomatic channels. The fact that the PMs of Poland and the Czech Republic had to be roused from their sleep after midnight was a big diplomatic slap in the face.
Look, President Obama can back out of deals if he believes that they are unproductive or cause problems with other areas of diplomacy. He is President. But this was not the right way to do it. Too many, it looks like he got rolled by Putin, or he is a diplomatic dunce. Or worse yet, he has no regard for his allies.
| 264 |
ExCamelJockey Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:16:19am |
…it should be pointed out that the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended this course of action. Are they all wrong?
Their jobs are to evaluate the missile defense program from a military standpoint. Obama’s is to evaluate the program from all standpoints, military, economic & political.
Our allies are complaining about being alienated and our enemies are cheering. IMO, this makes this either a poor political decision or at least one that was implemented and communicated poorly to our allies.
| 265 |
dogberry Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:16:20am |
Once again where are the SM-3s going to be stationed? If on ships in the eastern Med, can they reach missiles launched toward our European allies? Wiki gives the SM-3 a 500km range.
Also, Global Security has Iran working on 2,000-2,500 km and 3,000km+ solid fuels missiles with 2009+ and 2010 dates.
| 266 |
doubter4444 Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:52:16am |
re: #141 The Shadow Do
I don’t think there is a snowballs chance in hell for Russian cooperation on anything. There is zero evidence of that. Russia is a thug country and will not play ball in any diplomatic sense. Nukes and missile defense for Iran suddenly reversed? What is the chance of that.
I agree with that, however,
re: #164 The Shadow Do
Why in the world would anyone be surprised that Russia would support a nuclear Iran. They are an ally for crying out loud. To think otherwise qualifies as wishful.
With this I don’t.
A nuclear Iran is a wild card that the Russians can’t afford, no matter what their posturing. More nukes in the region, to Muslims, is nothing they would want, despite making money off them. It’s a game of chicken with the west: they’ll sell material and the rest, and hope that the west has to do something sooner or later to take them out. Win win win for the Russians, they make the sales, they support Iran when they get hit finally, and they never really have to have the program come to fruition.
Dangerous but then, they suck.
But i don’t for a minute think the Russians wan nukes in Iran… you don’t think Iran would not sell them to the Chechen’s?
Those guys would nuke a major Russian city a day till there supplies ran out if they could.
The only hope would be that Iran is Shia and the crazy Chechen’s are Sunni, but that’s a bet even Putin would not take, not to mention the HATE the Afghans have for them (the Russians), and could easily get one over the border into Russian territory.
The real issue is that middle eastern countries are NOT afraid to use them if they get them. And I don’t think Putin/Medeave would ignore that.
| 267 |
JonathanD Fri, Sep 18, 2009 12:00:23pm |
How soon before there’s a “Obama hates Poles/Czechs meme”
| 268 |
doubter4444 Fri, Sep 18, 2009 12:02:38pm |
re: #253 bruxellesblog
Charles, you ask if everyone is wrong about this? That isn’t the issue. I think it is said best by Zbigniew Brzezinski:
[Link: www.thedailybeast.com…]
I’m getting damn tired of amateur hour at the white house.
Whatever.
To the extent that the day was auspicious, I’ll give you that.
It should have been done tomorrow.
Fire the assistant for checking dates and get over it.
But I still recall all the crap from the NeoCons that ANYTHING we do should be in our best interest, and now they’re pissing and moaning that it may hurt relations with other countries, OMG!!.
Poland will get over it.
This seems to be a good idea, and one that Obama is gaming out, in my opinion, far longer than we are used to with the fire from the hip guys we had before.
As for Mccain’s response, he ought to be ashamed of himself… the entire Joint chief and the Sec Def (who just happened to be the fucking former CIA chief for the republicans, for god’s sake) not only endorsed the decision, but in all probably, had it ready from the Rumsfield era.
It was a good decision.
| 269 |
Kobyashi Maru Fri, Sep 18, 2009 12:46:33pm |
Simple decision; Russia was enraged about our pa=lacing any missiles 100 miles from the homeland (remember Cuba?). We desperately need their help with any effective sanctions against Iran. Sure we could do a naval blockade of gasoline but there are pipelines and they could buy all the gasoline they want from Russia through Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan…now maybe there might be a technical difficulty in the pipelines, or something like that. It’s called quid pro quo, and while the Poles are upset as they have always been seen as the strategic depth for Russia and the Moscow Oblast if we can pull this off without a war if Russia doesn’t actively oppose us, then this will be seen as a stroke of genius; if not we can build them anyway and put tungsten penetrators on our ICBM’s and hit their facilities hard. If diplomacy fails, buy gold, or better yet a gas station; the Arab Oil Embargo took 7% of world oil supply off the market in 1973 and look at the upheaval that caused…
| 270 |
MPH Fri, Sep 18, 2009 2:13:47pm |
re: #269 Kobyashi Maru
It’s called quid pro quo,
Only there was no quid pro quo…
If you can’t see the now established “reset-button” diplomacy pattern, then your eyes and ears are closed.
| 271 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 3:24:20pm |
Russia wanted to place missiles designed to attack the US in Cuba and Poland is way more than 100 miles from Russia.
Why on earth would Shia Iran ever supply AQ affiliated and Arab supported wahhabi Chechen groups with nukes?
Russia was not enraged about the missiles. It was enraged about losing its empire. Now it wants it back. So how far along are you guys ok with giving it back to Putin? And why in the meantime should we support US?
| 272 |
kittysaidwoof Fri, Sep 18, 2009 4:19:22pm |
BTW this question is exasperated by the fact that Obama hasn’t got around to even assign an ambassador to my country. So while our men and women are risking life and limb in heavy fighting (we’re not the guys with silly ROEs) with the Marines and the Brits in Helmand and suffering casualties in their effor to support US, we’re apparently not deigned worthy to even talk to.
| 273 |
MPH Fri, Sep 18, 2009 5:02:26pm |
…and it isn’t by accident that paleocon freakshows Stacy McCain and Robert Spencer have not written a word about Obama’s capitulation to Russia…
The Pat Buchanan brigade is actually happy about this development…
…and you know who runs Russian propaganda site russiablog.org, right? The creationist creeps at the Discovery Institute — Bruce Chapman himself.
There is something very very dark lurking in those paleocon (or should I say theocratic) shadows…
| 274 |
jpkoch Fri, Sep 18, 2009 6:03:19pm |
re: #267 JonathanD
How soon before there’s a “Obama hates Poles/Czechs meme”
No need. It is apparent that the President doesn’t understand the simplest forms of diplomacy. This isn’t the way one treats allies. Many nations are getting the message loud and clear. President Obama will turn on a dime if he thinks you are expendable. This is fast becoming a diplomatic kerkuffle that will cost this nation dearly. Nations like Jordan, the Philippines, Korea, and Columbia certainly will have taken notice. Collectively this little diplomatic flare up will cost us plenty.
| 275 |
JohnnyCache Fri, Sep 18, 2009 9:47:09pm |
The ship-based Aegis solution might be a better technical solution to the near term threat of short- and mid-range missiles but that doesn’t, IMO, settle the issue …
No one, it seems, disputes Iran’s ambitions to have ICBM’s that will, eventually threaten Western Europe and even the US East Coast — it’s just a matter of WHEN they might have this capability.
The Aegis ship-born system is suitable for mid-course defense of short- and mid-range missiles ([Link: www.mda.mil…]
In contrast, the ground-based radar and interceptors would have been able to defend against the mid-range missiles that would be flying over Eastern Europe on their way to Western Europe or, in the worst case scenario, the US East Coast.
Also, let’s concede that there was serious disagreement among Europeans and certainly within Poland and The Czech Republic about the ground-based system which is to say that the supporters went out on their political limbs to enable President Bush’s proposal.
So let’s say that three years from now our intelligence expert’s assessment is that Iran is then two years away from having long-range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. What do we do then? We will have little credibility so we have to wonder, who will be going out on a limb for us then?
I don’t envy Obama; only bad choices. But I don’t agree with his conclusion. He’s addressed today’s problem but his path-of-least-resistance solution will make it more difficult, later, to move forward with a more robust solution.
If the experts determined that fast deployment was the highest priority then Aegis-equipped ships could have been dispatched WHILE the ground-based system is developed. That’s the advantage of a ship-based system — it can be deployed quickly and re-deployed as circumstances dictate. But there are limitations, as I understand it, on the capabilities of ship-based radar and anti-missile missiles.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
| 276 |
dogberry Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:00:51pm |
Is there anyway Standard missiles can defend Poland (without being in the Black Sea)? A non-rhetorical question.
| 277 |
Old Crow Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:21:07am |
re: #276 dogberry
Is there anyway Standard missiles can defend Poland (without being in the Black Sea)? A non-rhetorical question.
Not in its current version (SM-3 Block I A/B). It also lacks the performance to intercept ICMB’s. In order to defend northern Europe against IRBM’s, Block I will still have to be partially ground-based.
Block II should have those capabilities, but it’s an almost entirely new missile (wider body, bigger motor, new warhead, etc) that isn’t scheduled to be ready until around 2020.
The usual disclaimer applies: these facts are for novelty purposes only, and I assume no liability for damages resulting from any potential inaccuracy.
| 278 |
jordash1212 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:47:18am |
I’ve been saying this since the beginning of the election: Obama’s rhetoric does not change the fact that he’s a realist. His charisma and rhetoric are liberal, yes. His actions are quite moderate and frequently security-based.
The only down side to this missile defense program is that Russia will be less cooperative with the United States sanctions and embargoes against Iran.
| 279 |
MPH Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:48:32am |
re: #278 jordash1212
Noah Pollak got it right:
There are many problems with individual Obama initiatives. But taken as a whole, the biggest problem is the administration’s apparent inability to look at the world as a system that responds with great sensitivity to American leadership, or the lack thereof. Obama looks at a map of the world as if through a straw, believing that his decisions in one area will have little effect on his choices in other areas. It is a grand strategy of rejecting the concept of grand strategy.
[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com…]
| 280 |
indigosplinter Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:01:07pm |
This wasn’t out of the blue. There’s been a study panel looking into this since before Inauguration Day. The Secretary of Defense was consulted extensively, and agreed with the decision. The NSC signed off. The President followed all the correct steps in making the policy change. He still arrived at the wrong answer.
William Gates isn’t a bad SecDef. But, he’s a pleaser, with no particular axe to grind—both good and bad. That’s why Bush loved him and that’s why Obama asked him to stay. He wants to executed the CnC’s orders. This was politically motivated, sure, and yes the study panel had a foregone conclusion, based on ideology. But, the facts of the issue were neglected and not given appropriate weight.
It’s true that the technology to effectively defend against the kind of missiles that one might most want this system for (small, mobile, numerous, built in a shed) isn’t there yet. Block II is well on its way though, and would have been there in due time, at a reasonable cost (as far as missile systems go, that is). The big problem is that we’ve now left allies out in the cold, allies that were counting on these systems for boarder protection in the face of global US troop withdraws.
This is part of what made those redeployments palatable two years ago when it was announced. (Yes, yes, it was also way overdue that we ask Europe to take a hand in its own defense.) In fact, Poland asked for their site the week Russia invaded Georgia. They’re connected. Not only have we shot ourselves in the foot by abandoning the technology, but we’ve slapped the friends we had in the face who were most likely to have to use it.
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
