Withdrawing From ABM Was Destabilizing: Here's Proof

Over the last eight years we've been bombarded with denial in so many forms it's hard to keep count. We were told the housing market was just fine. Then it was contained. We were told we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq, that the invasion and occupation wouldn't last but 6 weeks, no more than 6 months. We were told Afghanistan was fine and that Pakistani nukes were secure. That Mushy was a stable ally. We were told inflation wasn't an issue, then we were told it was only in energy due to speculators. Now? Not so much. But one issue that flew under the radar that is so immensely serious is now beginning to rear its ugly head, in a serious way with ugly rippling effects.

We were told when Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, in all the worldly wisdom the elite establishment guardians of our foreign policy could summon, that it wouldn't be de-stabilizing. Well guess what? It is. I submit this as article one of proof:

The Russian military, furious at American plans to install a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, is talking up the prospect of turning Cuba into a base for its long-range nuclear bombers.

Defence chiefs in Moscow are said to be pressing for the Kremlin to retaliate against the missile shield by placing strategic bombers off the American coast. The move threatens a rerun of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

What's there to say? What's there to add? The Russians are justifiably afraid of having a defense shield in Eastern Europe. To them it is a threat. It doesn't matter if ourintention is benevolent, or to guard against potential, non-existent Iranian missile threats. To the Russians their perception is that it is about them. Against them. And also, let's not forget that we promised Gorbachev that if Germany were allowed to unify NATO would not expand.

And now it expands, like a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia's imperial capital, Saint Petersburg, all the way to through the Baltic Republics. If there is one thing the Bush Administration has perfected is the total ignorance of other nations vital interests with the justification of American benevolence. The rest of the world ain't buying it anymore. And Russian actions are proof.

Can anyone honestly blame the Russians for seeking some countermove to all this American encroachment? No matter how desperate it looks?

The issue here is not about who is right or wrong. It's now turned into a chess match based on fear. How can that be stabilizing?

So the question still remains: at what point is self-defense perceived as a threat by an opposing party and how do the contending parties go about negotiating a settlement that includes both party's interests?

This is the point Americans don't get: there are limits to what we should do. There are limits that we cannot cross. We seem to have forgotten in all our fascination with this super, high-tech army, one important principle: the enemy has a vote.

The idea that there is anything remotely different between us putting up a missile shield on the borders of Russia and the Russian's making an agreement with a sovereign state to base bombers there is ludicrous. It's the same thing. We move one piece on the chessboard and the Russians do the same thing.

Sure, folks will make the argument that the Czech's and the Pole's want us there. Fine. Agreed. But then, don't complain about the Cubans or the Venezuelans basing of Russian forces. Both actions are legal and legitimate under international law.

The point here is for people to climb out from the bunker mentality that has pervaded for the last several years and think about issues like this in toto. Think about consequences. Is it really a good trade-off to station a missile shield in Europe, one that has not even been proven to work, for having Russian bombers 90 miles south of Florida? Is that a good deal? Hell, if someone tried to make that deal with me I'd laugh in their face. It's flat out stupidity.

It's just not as simple as saying, "America is right, to hell with everyone else," because sooner or later everyone else gets sick of it and does something about it. Although this is exactly what the neo-cons and their stooges will say.

Yeah, sure, we have a right to defend ourselves, but the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is immoral for a human to sacrifice someone else in his or her own self-defense. A similar principle applies here too.

Other nations do have valid and serious interests at stake and we walk all over them at our peril.

So here is a question for our right wing friends: at what point do other nations have legitimate interests?

Comments

[peterg76]

The primary goal of the "defence shield" is to funnel money to military contractors, but it's secondary goal is to prevent the Russians from intervening when the US attempts to steal Iran's oil. The fact that people in the Middle East and/or the Carribean realistically could be looking to the Russians as defenders of stability, freedom, law etc. says a lot.

[bronceye]

It will be built by Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR. Multi billion dollar contracts to cronies. It's that simple. Bush started his 1st term pushing for drilling in ANWR and putting up a missile defense system on the west coast. He's still plugging away, trying to keep promises he made to his elite base.

[lysistrata]

Anyone who thinks the missiles are to protect Europe against Iran is just plain stupid. Neither Iran nor Russia are a threat to Europe. The threat to Europe is the USA under Republicans Bush/Cheney or McCain. They do provoke and are the belligerent people. They are putting Europe in danger of war, it is not Iran or Russia. The warmongers sit in DC. When they leave office they leave an empire on the decline behind.

To all the right wing idiots, 9/11 was and is terrible for Americans but look what Americans have done to Iraq. How would you feel if you were an Iraqi? How would you feel if you were Iranian? What have they done to you?

[Cathexis]

I have one big objection to this post: Conflating Rightwing Extremists with "Americans." Unfortuantely, the problem is not confined to this post; one bit of propaganda with which the Rightwing have been VERY successful is wrapping themselves in the flag and pretending that "Americans" are doing these actions -- generalizing their extremist behaviour to hide from accountability.

This group suffers from unparalleled hubris and believes they can achieve by force what they aren't given by threats. I sincerely believe that THE single biggest threat the United States faces today is not Russia, or China, or "terrorists ... it is the domestic Rightwing.

[gorideabike]

A littlle counter doublespeak should clarify things: defense is war.

[PierreLeClerke]

There is only one explanation for these calculated actions, follow the $$$$$$

[Torus34]

It is quite possible to see withdrawing from the treaty, the stationing of a missle system near the USSR and the [probably impossible] missle defense shield program, as well as veiled comments about militarizing outer space, as steps in developing and implementing the concept of a permanent war. Why would an administration do this? The adage about changing horses comes to mind.

[Passenger57]

Let's not forget - I think the term used to describe Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was "unsigned".He "unsigned" it. The ink came off the paper and went back into the pen, I suppose.
Heaven forbid Iran "unsigns" the NPT;that would mean that they are about to attack Israel,who never signed it at all.
Our problem is that we think we can do whatever we want - but if YOU do it, YOUR intentions aren't benevolent.

[andyg]

Iran have not even signed it in the first place.

[mjc]

Unfortunately, what both the present candidates for president notice and point to in their own campaigns and experience, even if it is just photo ops of recent origin, is their ability to be tough, to be so strong as to be invincible. If the electorate believes it and there is enough fear of the enemy doing....you name it, then the reasoning goes that candidate will be elected. Geo Bush used that sort of campaign pointing to get him elected, though with help from the Supreme Court and about 30,000 votes in Ohio. We have to stop seeking to more militaristic than our competition, other nations, vague "terrorists" and begin to find ways to root out the drift to claims for military superiority. The only judgment I trust is Hillary Clinton's. Both McCain and Obama are just so filled with their wonderfulness and testosterone that it is difficult for them to see anything but conflict.

[Doofus]

Destabilizing? Sure. Was there ever any doubt?

This sort of move serves as a huge benefit to defense contractors & the High Tech
industry in general. Reagan's SDI/'Star Wars' program was an enormous boost to
that part of the economy, and then there was all that 'trickle down'. Remember?

Sometimes you've got to destabilize the world in order to save it!

(Whatever happens, don't vote for the Repo Man. You would regret it.)

[GrainOSand]

It seems that the only real impetus for change for a nation in denial is earth shattering, belly emptying, and life threatening crisis. Crisis that produces a laser-like focus allowing a majority to see beyond the fog of hype and illusion and arrive at the sane and necessary conclusion that America is broken and we must all work to fix it; for our own good and the good of future Americans. Otherwise, denial, apologists, and pain will reign long after any presidency of more of the same brought to you by that fellow named McCain. Vote for Obama but beyond that vote organize at the community level. Now maybe more than ever, America needs to be strong engaged communities of individuals; educated, disciplined, and ready to step up and fight the good fight for saving what is good about America. As the idea of a great America fades in the harsh light produced by the realities of what increasingly defies denial, spin, or the partisan zeal of bloated and drunk apologists, bloated on hidden agenda and transparent ambition, and drunk on a mixture of self aggrandizement and self-delusion, the citizens are mainly charged with correction and this can only be done through organization and unity. May we have an American Awakening that finds us taking back America from those who have stolen it literally and ideologically.

[GrainOSand]

One of the recurring stories or talking points about the Bush White House is that all there currently and previously, are well-meaning, hard working, dedicated and capable public officials. I heard this as recently as last week when in a judiciary committee hearing, a Republican congressman railed at the idea of criminal intent being behind the shell game that took America to war with Iraq. The congressman vigorously defended the policies of the White House concerning the selling of the Iraq war and stated further that if Bush is guilty then FDR is guilty of misleading the American people concerning WWII.

It is becoming clearer as each day passes that the policies of many politicians and everyday citizens have put America on a course fraught with peril, economically speaking and related to public safety and protection. The congressman from the hearing thought it asinine to suggest that the president would willfully put the country in jeopardy and he went on to belittle all suggestions that Bush did not have the best interest of the country at heart when he took it to ill-advised and unwarranted war with Iraq.

After reading this story, considering the congressman's remarks, and finally pondering that George Bush is finishing his second term, one can only conclude that the country likes pain. Therefore, bring on McCain for more of the same pain, for he is proving himself to be cut from the same Bush cloth.