Defending Against the Real Threats
Republicans in Congress, led by their presidential candidate John McCain, are attempting to show the world that they are capable of reacting swiftly to Russian saber-rattling. Unfortunately, they are once again doing so in a manner that reflects their complete misunderstanding of the threats the United States and our allies face.
Today in Warsaw, Secretary Rice signed an agreement to expedite the construction of ten long range missile interceptors in Poland. These same Republicans have mistakenly conflated this pact with Russian provocation in Georgia and misrepresented this missile defense system as a protection against further Russian aggression.
The problem is, this system would be virtually useless to prevent any Russian attack considering the interceptors would be easily outnumbered by the Russian missile arsenal. Belligerent Russian rhetoric in response to this pact should be treated as unfortunate hyperventilation, but should not be given serious credence. What this Republican conflation does is tell the world that it is enough to seem like you are protecting your allies, whether or not you are doing anything to address the real threats they face.
The U.S. and Russia have serious issues that need to be discussed, such as full Russian redeployment from Georgian territory, negotiating a follow-on treaty to START, and reining in Iran's nuclear program. Equally belligerent rhetoric by McCain and his neocon acolytes does nothing to protect us, and just adds fuel to the fire.
Right now, addressing existing short and medium range missile threats needs to be the focus of the United States and our NATO allies. I take our commitment to NATO's Article Five very seriously, and it is in this vein that we should be delivering Poland the systems they need to protect against very real short range missile threats.
Although today's pact seems to incorporate some of these defenses, the main outcome is that the Bush Administration will move aggressively to dig holes in Eastern Europe to build an ideologically-based system that is untested and certainly not ready, against a threat that has not yet emerged. We need a system that works today, against the threats of today. Congress holds the purse strings, and we will continue to insist that that we have both independent analysis of missile defense options and that the Secretary of Defense certifies the system actually works.
Of course John McCain, who hopes to soon begin George Bush's third term, has relished the opportunity to rehash Reagan-era Star Wars rhetoric about Imperial Russia. In today's asymmetric War on Terror, he seems about as current as Dr. Strangelove.
Democrats are committed to addressing real threats in real time with the right systems, not just by playing lip service and feeding into a rhetorical frenzy that can produce policies that are misguided, and rushed.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The real reason the Evangelicals and Republicans want to ban birth control and abortions is to have more poor (who can't afford the children) to be more accessable for CHEAP labor and to have more young people to fight and get killed or mamed in their WARS...Now they are telling Russia not to do what they already did to Iraq. McCain is running around touting winning the war, when he himself said it was over when Sadam was overthrown. People are falling for this nonsense. HELLO! Our supply of youth is running out and we better not induce the draft to continue their frivolous wars for oil-- guess who else has oil Georgia. hmmmmm McCain does not vote for benefits for Vets. why do they support him (go to search and ask if he did)? People must be uninformed surely they aren't in favor of this.
Anyone remembers Russia has been quietly re-armed after the fall of the Soviet Union and the disarment? While they are doing it, Bush thought he saw Putin's soul by looking into his eyes and trusted him. While we are engaging in two wars with no ends in sight and shortage of soldiers, if we want to rattle our sable, would anyone believe we have the strength?
The real problem is that you are preaching to the choir here, rather than being on national television preaching to the nation.
I hope you get the opportunity to do so and will NOT mince any words when the time is avail.
Representative,
What effect, if any, do you think the Democratic Party controlled House had on this situation by not being willing to bring George W. Bush before the Senate to stand trial?
Why would they not impeach him?
The American people can have any war that they want, but only under the following conditions:
- all persons of age shall be subject to a military draft
- all persons not serving in the military shall be subject to a specific and distinct tax levy to pay for the substantial additional cost of actual combat operations.
No more warring on credit. No more standing on the sidelines.
Representative Ellen, it seems you missed he real national security threat here.
And it is a quite a chilling one: a Democractic victory in November..
When a poliical party defines the national interest and national security in terms of the interests of only one economic class, it's quite easy to understand why billion dollar no bid contracts for large companies are preferred to such wasteful and probably socialistic things as providing adequate body armor to our servicemen, clean drinking water for them, safe electrical connections, post battle adequate medical care, affordable health care for the folks back home, etc. etc.
It's also very important to understand that the RP considers those who agree with its policies as "real" Americans.
Those who don't are merely tolerated residents of this country with certain privileges (notice I did not use the word rights) granted by the "real Americans".. You can take comfort that at this point there is no talk of forcibly removing the tolerated residents so I guess that puts you and me in a better status than illegal "aliens".
SORRY? Did you say Dem where you meant Repub? Or was that farcical?
To say that Republicans, neo-cons, evangelicals and the like are misguided is being generous. They've never grown up to the real world about them, and for some curious reason are still playing dungeons and dragons.
Geauterre:
Actually, I think they aren't misguided at all. This administration, by and large, has accomplished what they wanted. To get government out of business and business into government. They have effectively outsourced our government to private entities who are inept at serving the public, but great at serving business interests. They believe the interests of the people will be served by having government move out of the way of big business, or rather to have government work as a conduit for big business. They have accomplished that. Ironically, they have managed to build a republican, evangelical, neo-con movement of their own that states that the problem with government IS government, but THEIR government would know this and "fix" it. We're fighting more than misguided politics...we're fighting a misguided ideology.
I would suggest ELIMINATING THE BUDGETS of two neo-con Pax Americana wet dreams that have been the poking pins into this whole little fiasco:
John McCain is the President of the INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Republican_Institute
Madelaine Albright is the leader of the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY - the Democratic Neo-con version of the above
http://www.ned.org/
BOTH of these groups are acting as SHADOW STATE DEPARTMENTS and giving CONFLICTING SIGNALS to nations involved.
Hence, that aggressive plea by the President of Georgia for John McCain TO DO SOMETHING...
He really thought MC CAIN - because he is the PRESIDENT of the IRI was going to come in like Patton on a White Horse.
Why? Because GEORGIA is the POSTER CHILD for the IRI.ORG
http://www.iri.org.ge/eng/engmain.htm
Why isn't this coming out?
Why isn't congress aware of this?
And if you ARE AWARE, WHAT'S UP WITH THIS?
"This isn't Kansas anymore, Toto"....
Excellent poin, Baden. I was unaware of the influence of these institutes, and I usually try to keep up....
Rep. Tauscher misdiagnoses the problem here. It is not that we need to protect against "the very real threat" of short range missiles from Russia. It is that we need to return to the ABM treaty.
It will be seen in retrospect, that Bush's indulgences in Star Wars fantasies were one of the most pernicious of his many pernicious actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABM_Treaty
Rep. Tauscher: "I take our commitment to NATO's Article Five very seriously, and it is in this vein that we should be delivering Poland the systems they need to protect against very real short range missile threats."
After mischaracterizing as "saber rattling" Russia's response to America's (Bush's) attempt to establish NATO client states on Russia's borders, Rep. Tauscher undercuts her own arguments against Bush's ABM system by advocating a different one with a whole lot more interceptors.
The problem with this is that Russia is no more going to stand for any kind of American missiles on its border, any more than the US was willing to tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba.
The policy of enclosing Russia with mini NATO members recruited from former Soviet states was flawed from the beginning. Adding missiles has exacerbated the error.
We would do better to be Russia's friend than to indulge in a new cold war with them. There are bigger dangers looming.
Right, antagonizing Russia is counterproductive. Is the goal here to destabilize Russia? Did we really expect that after the fall of USSR, Russia is going to become our Banana Republic?
"Did we really expect that after the fall of USSR, Russia is going to become our Banana Republic?"
That was certainly, the (apparent) goal of the Clinton administration (see HRC "experience," here). Bill sent numerous "advisors" to Russia, most with the intent of getting rich by ripping off emergent Russian businessmen ("oligarchs"),Incidentally, for those who were intent on ripping off state owned resources.
Our present Bush-league "decider," with his admiration of V. Putin's KGB past, thought he saw 1. a weak Russia, and 2. a way to turn America into a fascist (Soviet type) state.
Surprise! Russia has its own agenda, based on history, culture, and national interest.
Incidentally, for those of you crying crocodile tears for "poor Georgia," consider that a couple of hundred years ago Georgia begged to be taken into the Russian empire to avoid being assimiilated by the Turkish empire. Some gratitude, eh?
All I can suggest to the Democrats and their disciples is please DO NOT read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 1978 speech at Harvard and clearly avoid reading Igor Shafarevich's book The Socialist Phenomenon because the fantasy world you live in will be shattered.
You are the one living in the fantasy world. The Russians have gained more power relative to the U.S. under the ideological fixations of the Bush Administration than under all other U.S. Administrations combined (going all the way back to Tsarist times).
Here we go again, a liberal bringing feelings and hate to a fact fight. The only power Russia has gained during the Bush administration is OIL and GAS. Because Democrats do not want to drill, drill, drill they have given Russia great economical power being the major supplier of gas to Western Europe. Russian generals are on record that the 1991 defeat of Iraq was the US defeating an Iraqi army using Russian tactics. NO, if today's US military engages Russia in Georgia without any restrictions from the Democrat Party and treason by the New York Times, you are looking at a short war. Russia has not expanded it military power to the degree that China did under the Clinton administration when Clinton authorized the technology to guide missiles and other advanced systems be given directly and indirectly to China. Why do you think the Chinese are the Democrats major illegal donor???
It really bugs me that GW BUSH is the SABRE RATTLER< hopefully we might get him out , before he gets us into another war, I heard someone say RUSSIA REACTED TO GEORGIA'
Can you imagine Blackwater, moving into Georgia next year? The military petroleum complex has been on the move since kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan, with the consequent Taliban occupation, which apparently was better.
Letting hedge fund managers dictate foreign policy, probably is a mistake. We and the Ruskies have a moslem problem, so why are we at odds with one another? Why should we care about Georgians if the Europeans do not care about what the Georgians do? They need to get along with their neighbors, rather than expect intervention from the opposite side of the world.
There is a lot of BS that goes around, from Putin and McCain, and what they say is best seen in that vein. I believe Sen. McCain was trying to coax the Russians out of Georgia, and what can we do about that other than say nasty things?
Perpetual war is the true dark heart of Europe and if they wish to remain the sophisticated 'Merci Beaucoup' tourist trap they are today they better help the US counter the Russian threat and if necessary drive them from Georgia..
Europe attracts tourism for many reasons, particularly history, culture, and art. What does that have to do with helping the US against the "Russian threat" in this case?
This situation is not as simple as you seem to think. Georgia may have acted provocatively and precipitated Russia's response. The occurence is not conducive to binary thinking (yes or no, Georgia good / Russia bad, etc.).
Further complicating the problem is that Russia supplies a significant percentage of Europe's energy. Do you remember the oil embargo in the seventies? Europe would rather like to avoid that. Lastly, the days of Europe crawling at top speed to the feet of the Americans every time the US crooks a beckoning finger are over, thanks in large part to that subpar primate (excuses to all other primates) in the White House.
Given the enormous success (he says with tongue firmly in cheek) of American diplomacy and foreign policy over the last years, why would Europe even want to follow a US lead? I suggest that you, Harod, are in a very weak position to state what Europe "better" do, let alone insist upon it.
Once upon a time Europe was a hell hole Iraq could only dream of and if the Russians get tired of talking and decide to stomp Europe like the Napolian and the Nazi's did it will be a hell hole again so maybe they should back up the US in the face of the Russian threat and get oil from some place else..
I just hope the Russians hold back until Obama gets into office. It seems, however, that W is provoking them big time, and through Condi as well. I don't know about you guys, but when the Russians say they are going to respond well past diplomatic measures, I tend to believe them.
You'd better believe them! Especially now that everyone knows we're maxed to the limit. Bush has compromised our entire military standing in the world. Just so he could see cowboy justice done by hanging Saddam Hussain for threatening his daddy. Maybe if we change the rules and elect Ahnold president, he can terminate them!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
