AmericaSpeakOn.org Featured Contributor Listing

Tired of being categorized as "red" or "blue"? Join AmericaSpeakon.org to share your ideas. Become a leader. Speak Up. Speak Out. America, SpeakOn!

9/23/2009

Let's Make a Deal?

by The Philadelphians

We’ll be the first to tell you that we are not qualified to confidently evaluate this whole missile defense system situation. However, as we normally do, we recently discussed the news and couldn’t tear away from this subject that we know so little about….After all, it’s not like “Missile Defense & You” is an elective found at many colleges or universities today, right?

According to one of ASO’s recent stories found in What’s Bubbling (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-20-voa9.cfm), Secretary Gates is staunchly defending President Obama’s decision to abandon the system that would have placed 10 ground-based missile interceptors in Poland and advanced radar in the Czech Republic in favor of a “sea and ground-based program;” Gates contends that the latter will be functional several years earlier than the former, and he assures us that “We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates.html?scp=1&sq=Gates%20missile&st=cse

Again, we can’t fairly support or reject this decision, BUT upon further research, we found another missile defense article that caught all four of our eyes. Give Ilan Berman’s piece entitled Our Missile-Defense Race Against Iran a read, and let us know if you are as shocked as we are about the casualness of national bargaining: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420790506939498.html.

To us, they make it sound like they are trading athletes between two baseball teams as opposed to significant national security points of interest between two powerful countries.

Where’s the contract? Not to jab our “friends” in Eastern Europe, but a soft, verbal agreement about something as crucial as Iranian relations won’t suffice. There is just no guarantee the Russians will live up to their end of the bargain and cooperate with the U.S. more often in the handling of Iran and its belligerent leader, Ahmadinejad. With that said, why would we be open to accommodating so swiftly just for the possibility of a Russian “change of mood” in the future? How many years did we get the Russians for and at what cost?

- The Philadelphians

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Author

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 - 1:39pm

MA: I am amazed (and a little sickened) that T.O. made it into this topic; he really is all-consuming, just as he wants it - ha! Frank: Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point of this submission. At no point were we trying to pick one option over another; rather, we were simply summarizing the circumstances & bringing to light the "behind-the-scenes" type of wheeling and dealing that has occurred with our national security interests (see link #3 within article, specifically the "secret" letter from Pres Obama to Medvedev). Anyway, just for fun...so you’re willing, as a U.S. citizen, to rely on NATO for security? Wow, that is some blind faith, something we have little room for in today’s world.

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 - 11:11am

Excellent analogy! It does sound like trading athletes, in particular it sounds like trading for Terrell Owens. Big name, big potential, but only a matter of time until they ruin the team. (you should be familiar with that) Why not call a spade a spade: the real truth is that the Obama Administration’s new missile defense strategy is: Russia. The Gates Op-ed is a joke. The fact that the SM-3 is "growing in capability" isn't going to help me sleep at night when Iran is growing in capability at a more rapid pace and Russia helped then get there. I am not saying the "third site" mds was the answer, but I agree with Senator McCain that leaving Poland and Czech Republic in the wind to jump in bed with Russia is a questionable idea.

Frank Safertal

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 - 11:01am

I am glad that The Philadelphians stated in the first sentence of their contribution that they are " not qualified" to evaluate this decision. I second that motion. Since most of the media does not deal with facts, lets have some. Leaving aside merits or demerits of the new deployment strategy ( and there is a new strategy based on new intelligence), here are some other inputs: 1. Substantial majority of population in Poland and Czech R ( 65 and 75 % respectively ) was against US bases in their countries; 2. Only one political party (ODS) in the Czech republic supported deployment - and they lost confidence vote in the Czech parliament. 3 other parliamentary parties opposed the deployment. Similar political opposition existed in Poland; 3. Deployment of US military in Czech and Poland was seen by local politicians as a way to reduce their own military expenditures - some even said ' once we have Americans here, we are OK, they will defend us as part of their defence" - quite a cynical posture. This is of course from the same guys who are pulling out of Afghanistan. Fear of Russia is fully justified, but that's why we have NATO alliance and both Czechs and Poles are members. 3.

« Previous Page

Be a part of our Social Networks