Obama To Poland: Screw You

Let’s not make the mistake of thinking Obama’s decision to backtrack on the Missile Defense agreement with Poland and the Czechs had anything to do with Polish public opinion, stabilizing Eastern Europe, or switching to a “cheaper, more effective solution.

No, it was politics:

Purely a Political Decision

  • Appeasing Russia, Ignoring Our Allies: President Obama’s decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. global missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic (the “third site”) is entirely political, designed to appease Russia, but it will leave the U.S. more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack.
  • A Victory for Putin over NATO: This decision is a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its region. The U.S. essentially gave Russia a veto over NATO’s support for the third-site defenses in Europe and turned Poland and the Czech Republic into second-class NATO citizens as members whose security is subject to Russia’s whims.
  • Nothing in Return: There is scant evidence that Russia will deliver anything credible in return for Obama’s abandonment of the third site, especially with regards to the growing Iranian threat. Russia has already failed to offer any concessions in return for this policy change and is unlikely to support greater U.N. sanctions against Iran later this year.

To be fair, nobody with half a brain expected Putin to actually give up anything for these concessions.

To be fairer, Obama’s administration doesn’t have half a brain when it comes to foreign policy.

  • Emasculating America’s Credibility: The Obama plan represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, who in the future will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises. A Polish spokesperson called the decision “catastrophic for Poland.”

Shameful Surrender

  • The Technology Does Work: The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic were in fact cost-effective and proven technologies that offer protection from long-range missile attack to both Europe and the U.S. The alternative that Obama will now pursue–sea-based Standard missiles and later ground-based variants–will not satisfy those criteria.
  • No Long-Range Missile Defense for Europe Now: America has worked with NATO and European allies to develop Europe’s capabilities against short-range missile attacks, which is hugely important. However, Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attacks, while America has limited defenses against long-range missile attacks. This decision undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.
  • Growing Iranian Threat: Vice President Joe Biden recently said he is now “less concerned, much less concerned” about the Iranian threat. Where does this assessment come from? The Iranians successfully tested a space launcher in February and could have a long-range missile by 2015, and the United Nations confirms that Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb today.

Weak and Misleading Arguments

  • Either/Or? The Obama plan will deal with the more “urgent” threat of short-range missiles, but why must we choose one or the other? The Administration say they do not have new “intelligence,” but rather have made a new assessment of existing intelligence. They say they are deploying “proven” systems, but they ignore technological advances when convenient. They say their plan “enhances” European protection, but that is true only if you ignore long-range threats.
  • More Cost-Effective? The Obama team says its plan is more cost-effective, but what that really means is that it’s cheaper: It will cost $2.5 billion instead of $5 billion. It is foolish to shortchange national security to pay for giveaways like the Cash for Clunkers program.
  • A Loss Leader: This is a strategic loss, a security loss, a diplomatic loss, and a major loss for America’s prestige on the world stage.

Here’s the big question:  does an American people so short-sighted and trivial enough to elect an empty suit like Barack Obama in hte first place have the attention span to care about the gathering foreign policy disaster that this Administration represents?

4 thoughts on “Obama To Poland: Screw You

  1. waiting to hear RickDFL tear apart this one. Bill how dare you use a magic 8 ball, thats clearly racist because its BLACK.

  2. I think that if the Obama administration had even an inkling of Czeck and Pole public opinion being in favor of this move they would have made it the centerpiece of the announcement to demonstrate a “new era” of relations with allies. Either they missed this or the president was aware but didn’t think it relevant and refused to be disingenuous about it, ’cause that’s how he rolls.

  3. Here’s the big question: does an American people so short-sighted and trivial enough to elect an empty suit like Barack Obama in hte first place have the attention span to care about the gathering foreign policy disaster that this Administration represents?

    I believe we’ve got bigger problems than Obama’s foreign policy.

    Consider how disasterously Obama is performing on the economic issues so much closer to home and you can understand why Americans, not a people traditionally concerned with foreigners and foreign policy, might be not paying attention to his foreign policy. That’s a shame considering that Obama may actually be worse than Carter and we’re still dealing with Carter’s messes, but if Obama fundamentally trashes the American economy we won’t care about what his foreign policy did.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.