Obama’s European Missile Plan Is Actually Pretty Good If We Take Out The Appeasement

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Obama’s European Missile Plan Is Actually Pretty Good If We Take Out The Appeasement

Written By : William Teach

With all due respect, there were quite a lot of people on the Right getting upset over Obama’sdecision to do away with the Poland-Czechoslovakia radar/missile shield that President Bush had envisioned. Yes, there were two reasons to be concerned. One, President Chump decided to make this announcement on the 70th anniversary of Russia invading Poland, and second, because it seemed, as John Hawkins points out, a total capitulation to Russia. Bad moves both by Obama.

However, what is the actual plan? After spending quite a bit of time explaining why Russia was annoyed by the Bush plan, and unintentionally pointing out why Obama is pulling a Chamberlain to Russia (the missiles were not the problem, the X-band 360 degree radar was) the NY Times gets to the heart of the matter

How then does the Obama plan address those concerns? Mr. Obama ordered the development of a system that would deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors in 2011, at first on ships but later on land in Europe, aimed more at short- and medium-range Iranian missiles rather than the intercontinental missiles Russia has. The radar in the Czech Republic would no longer be needed; instead new land, air and space sensors would be relied on to track missile launches and their trajectories.

…the Obama administration said it planned to deploy the SM-3s in as many as three land-based sites in Europe starting in 2015 and offered both Poland and the Czech Republic the opportunity to host those missiles. Since Poland was willing to host the larger interceptor missiles as part of the Bush plan, it presumably might accept the smaller missiles Mr. Obama wants to use.

If the idea is simply to create a system to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Europe, than this is a good plan. And, it should be, since military leaders came up with it. If the job gets done, and the shield for Europe is better, hey, good deal.

Of course, to go pure partisan, I certainly can envision Obama telling the military to come up with another plan that wasn’t so mean to Russia. However,

“The Russians are probably not going to be pleased that we are continuing with missile defense efforts in Europe,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “But at the same time, there are two changes in this architecture that should allay some of their, what we think, unfounded concerns.” Those would be the elimination of the radar in the Czech Republic and the switch to smaller missiles that “they simply cannot, at least rationally, argue bears any kind of threat to Russia,” he said.

Encapsulated in that one paragraph is the notion that we are not abandoning Europe, yet, are appeasing Russia. Ben Smith tells us that Polish PM Donald Tusk was first called by Hillary Clinton, but wouldn’t accept the call because it was against protocol. So, the first attempted contact to tell Poland was not even done correctly. He also refused to take Obama’s first call, but, took his second.

And, this little plan upsets many in Eastern Europe, who are still concerned about the threat from Russia, which rather shows that it was not about the the missiles, but the radar. Obama’s just making more and more friends in Europe!

That said, we can applaud that there is a plan that will do the same thing as the stated goal of President Bush’s plan, to stop Iranian missiles, and, we can also slam him for abandoning Eastern Europe allies and appeasing Russia.

Provided the missile plan doesn’t get abandoned, as well.

Mike_M

As I mentioned before, the missile components of this story are ancillary. Gates has a reasonable plan and is following it, and Obama appears to be smart enough to listen to the military.

The problem is that Obama made the decision unilaterally, made more embarassing protocol breaches in delivering the news, made no attempt to negotiate with Russia over the point, and has breached the trust of these valuable allies.

That it was done on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was either an underhanded slap at them by Obama, or (nearly as bad) another display of oblivious incompetence by Hillary's State Department. Obama may as well have made the announcement from Munich to sufficiently inslute the Czechs.
tblrk2006

That it was done on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was either an underhanded slap at them by Obama, or (nearly as bad) another display of oblivious incompetence by Hillary's State Department. Obama may as well have made the announcement from Munich to sufficiently inslute the Czechs.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-18 09:56:20

Yup. Im guessing he knew full well what the date signified and wanted to use it as a way to distance his USA from that of the past. Probably to suck off putin too.
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

Apparently GE gets a personal meeting with Putin as a quid pro quo for the cancellation of the shield. GE, they own MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC, the biggest most vocal supporters of Barak Obama.

Nothing to see here. These aren't the droids you are looking for. /Jedi hand motion
HappyFunBall

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has delinked Little Green Footballs.
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

Posted by HappyFunBall

2009-09-18 10:24:43

No shock there. There is no profit linking to a hate site.
HappyFunBall

The surprise is that it took so long. Still, it's a shame to see a once great site turn to the dark side. Before too long, they'll be praising DailyKos and DU.
http://www.comics.com/editoons/asay/ Zheldon

Those would be the elimination of the radar in the Czech Republic and the switch to smaller missiles that “they simply cannot, at least rationally, argue bears any kind of threat to Russia,” he said.

Have you read about the THAAD system? It does not use explosives so to be used as an offensive weapon is extremely dumb. Of course I'm not sure if they were going to use the THAAD over there, I just ASSuMEd it as it is the only missile defense system that I know about. THAAD also has the ability to take care of the smaller missiles.

What is so terrible about the radar though?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

"Obama’s European Missile Plan Is Actually Pretty Good If We Take Out The Appeasement"

Yeah… unless you live in Eastern Europe, and Obama goes from "big missile interceptors" to "little missile interceptors" to "what missile interceptors?" Then you have to kiss Iran's ass to make sure your country doesn't become a glowing glass crater… and Russia's ass to make sure it doesn't become the next Georgia. I don't trust Obama not to throw our allies under the Soviet/Iranian bus.
http://www.thepiratescove.us William_Teach

Zheldon, the Russkies did not like that the radar installations could see really, really, really far into Russian territory.
http://wastingtimewithalex.com/ AlexinCT

If the idea is simply to create a system to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Europe, than this is a good plan. And, it should be, since military leaders came up with it. If the job gets done, and the shield for Europe is better, hey, good deal.

Watch the Russians talk him out of this deal as well. Then the Obama people will propose to use sling shots or bottle rockets to stop Iranian ballistic missiles. My bet is the Russians talk him out of that too. In the mean time we get nothing in return while losing valuable time. Why does this sound familiar?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

If the idea is simply to create a system to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Europe, than this is a good plan.

A better plan would be to make sure the Iranians don't have anything to put on top of those missiles.
Bildo

This may just be political payback to Poland for supporting Bush and sending troops to Iraq.

In the end, whether it is good policy or not, Obama should have gotten something big from Russia in return. Russia is the biggest obstacle in the UNSC against levying sanctions against Iran. Russia should have been pressured to give in on that in exchange for us giving up the radar in Poland.
D-Vega

I think the right fumbled this one as well, reacting without knowing all of the facts. The Joints Chiefs all support this. Not because they are standing by their CiC, but because they can better defend Europe with something more mobile, and something they know actually works well.
tblrk2006

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-18 14:53:32

Nope. There was no fumble here. While on the cover the system could and would have protected from Iranian missles, it was meant to send a strong signal to Putin that we dont tolerate their recently aggressive moves and we can protect ourselves from them. OBama would rather pretend the cold war didnt happen, cant happen, and the USSR is just a friendly neighbor.
D-Vega

"A strong signal" is meaningless in this case. Russia is not afraid of the US starting a shooting war with them.

It's sour grapes from the right, as it makes their idea look short-sighted and petty.

Russia ain't going to start a war with Poland, or us. But let's say they did. We would still have a defensive sheild around Europe that is mobile and that can respond accordingly.
whats_up

Posted by tblrk2006

2009-09-18 15:03:48

Now tblrk2006 doesnt support our military, after all the JC all supported this, this is what the military said they wanted and what would work, but what do they know right?
smelvertising

Russia ain't going to start a war with Poland

You keep betting your life on it. It's not like history is something you can learn from.

You'd do good not to play with other people's lives, though… but since when have liberals cared about anything but their own?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Russia ain't going to start a war with Poland

Sure, that's just what everyone said about Georgia.
D-Vega

Georgia is not a member of NATO, Cav.
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

Both you and martinhale are mistaken about my motive for posting on RWN. I don't do it to change minds. Highly partisan political bloggers are not composed of people who are open to rational debate or having their minds changed. I don't do it to keep score. There is no designated unbiased RWN scorekeeper to perform that function.

I post on RWN because its easy and fun to fluster political ideologues who are more obsessed with attacking the opposition than they are in boosting their own positive aspects. The vast majority of RWN OP's and its responders focus their ideological energy on the negative by attacking the opposition. Fortunately for me, there almost always exists in the real world examples of both sides committing the same types of infractions for which negative focused political bloggers attack the opposition. That is what makes many RWN OP's and their supporters such easy marks to fluster. I can almost almost always find a real world example of when the other dog got kicked. The leftist blogs are just as vulnerable in that regard. I've actually tried it. Its not near as much fun. The liberal bloggers don't get their panties in as much of a knot as do conservative bloggers when I infuse the "whoose dog got kicked" game into their partisan negative attacks.

Posted by snohomish
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

If Obamateur was concerned about the US taxpayer, he would do something about that whole tripling of the deficit trick he just did in 8 months.

Face it, his biggest mouthpieces at GE owned networks just got a face to face meeting with Vlad Putin for Boama throwing our allies out the window. In other words, Obama bought his supporters making money off of Russia by selling out our allies, and no one on the left cares. The only person defending this is a sockpuppet for a banned poster who has used 8 differing user names.

In short, Obama's friends stand to make millions off of this move for the wallets. An Inconvenient Truth.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
rmiller

Russia ain't going to start a war with Poland, or us. But let's say they did. We would still have a defensive sheild around Europe that is mobile and that can respond accordingly.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-18 15:10:58

Mr. Vega….I have to admit that as a liberal I think you are admitting a concern that is not automatic.

Europe is not the US. We may agree on many levels with the Europeans, but it is mistaken to think that the European national security is the same as ours.

And I can think of many scenarios where European national security diverges from the American.

I think it is a mistake to equate the two….it prohibits the Europeans for thinking for themselves.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

it prohibits the Europeans for thinking for themselves.

OK, just for arguments' sake, let's say we withdraw all our forces from Europe tomorrow. Do Russia and Iran would completely dominate the continent before the end of September, or do you think it might actually take until mid-October for them to realise that no one can possibly stop them and act accordingly?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

That was supposed to be "Do you think Russia and Iran would completely dominate the continent before the end of September"

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN