Radical, Risky or Nuanced: Obama and National Security?

Peter Huessy

An article by a S.A. Miller, “Matter of Nuance and Tone” in the October 7th edition of the Washington Times cites Steven David of Johns Hopkins University’s National Security Studies Program comparing the national security positions of Senator McCain and Obama. The professor claims their views are really not that much different, trying desperately to deflect attention from the radical nature of the Illinois Senators foreign policy positions.

For example, on Iraq, Obama wants to leave according to an arbitrary timeline which would snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, a position he tried to get our commanders in Iraq to accept. He has only said he would consult with our military about withdrawal, not that their views would have any impact. While Obama says Iraq was always a sideshow, Osama Bin Laden said it was the central front in the fight with western civilization. By contrast, McCain called for a change in strategy which has worked and put Iraq and the US on the path to victory. It has transformed Iraq, made it a US ally, and defeated Al Qaeda, Saddam’s Baathists and the Iranians in a crucial battle in the war against the terror masters.

As for meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela and other terrorist sponsoring states, the article again misses the point. We have been talking with Iran since 1979. They have universally continued their terrorist ways and their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The key is whether we will treat Iran as simply another diplomatic adventure, as opposed to getting serious about a policy of divestment, (which McCain supports), and deploying missile defenses, (which Obama opposes and McCain supports). As the foreign minister of France recently explained, you do not negotiate with a country that has a national policy of killing you. If anything, we should be talking with and assisting internal dissident and democratic groups in Iran to help put pressure on the regime in Tehran.

But more importantly, Obama says that Hezbollah and Hamas, supported by Iran to the tune of over $1 billion annually, have “legitimate grievances”. Since their terrorist war against us is simply because we exist, Obama’s only means of granting them what they want is to have America and Israel commit suicide. Obama always sees America as the problem, as having created the grievances that supposedly motivate our adversaries. The late UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick had a word for this: “Always blame America”.

Take for example the Russian invasion of Georgia. This was a naked power grab, planned long in advance, as part of Moscow’s attempt to hold a monopoly over energy supplies to gain hegemonic influence in Europe and elsewhere. Obama’s reaction was to blame Georgia as well, and indirectly the US, hardly something to instill confidence in our NATO allies.

On top of which, as related by the Polish foreign minister, Obama doesn’t support the missile defenses we are building in Europe because he remains unconvinced the interceptors are not aimed at Russia. Well, who is to convince the Senator? It is a matter of physics that such interceptors cannot hit Russian missiles launched over the North Pole at the United States. Period. Senator McCain, by contrast, firmly supports the deployment which is aimed at protecting Europe against Iranian ballistic missiles, rockets that are being built with the help of North Korea and Russia.


Whenever Obama has had a choice to vote to support missile defense, he has always said no. He has called for cutting tens of billions from missile defense programs. And his senior advisers do not seem to understand we are not spending $10 billion on national missile defense alone but some 16 interconnected and integrated missile defense interceptor, radar and space elements that protect Americans here at home and our soldiers and allies abroad.

It gets just as bad when you compared international economic and energy issues. Obama wants us to restrict domestic oil and gas development, particularly offshore, and has nothing but objections to enhanced nuclear and coal development. His running mate, Joe Biden, opposes clean coal development and voted in 1973 against the Alaskan Pipeline which now brings 1 million barrels of oil to America a day, which translates into an average reduction in the price of gasoline for Americans of 87 cents a gallon.

Biden even wrote the President of Iraq condemning that countries negotiation with US oil companies to expand oil production, with the result the Iraqis secured the help of Chinese companies. In short, while China drills 50 miles off of Miami and in Iraq, Biden and Obama won’t let American energy companies do the same thing. America is being held hostage by foreign energy cartels and Obama wants us to inflate our tries! On trade and foreign assistance, Obama wants to repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression by restraining trade while automatically sending every year .7% of our GDP--$85 billion—to the thieves at the UN.

Finally, on nuclear weapons, Obama’s support for expanding programs like Nunn-Lugar and the Defense Threat Reduction Act belongs in the category of “so what?” Everybody else supports such an expansion and funding has increased over 40% already with an additional $1 billion annually having been pledged by our European allies. On maintaining our nuclear deterrent, Obama falls down. He wants to build no nuclear weapons, even if the ones we have do not work. He wants to de-alert America’s nuclear missiles which would render them useless. Senator McCain supports no such reckless policy. In fact, on examination, whether the development of nuclear forensics, maritime and port security, missile defense, maintaining deterrence, enhancing Nunn-Lugar, pushing responsible and verifiable arms control, enhancing the Proliferation Security Initiative, or divestment, Senator McCain has been a leader.

Obama’s wonderfully nuanced position is reflected in his comment that he would only support missile defenses that work. Well, duh! That is the purpose of building them and testing them. Since 2001, we have been successful in 34 of 42 intercepts, including 26 out of 27 since September 2005. Instead of praising the Missile Defense Agency and its leadership and being out front in protecting America, Obama always has an objection. It is as if President Kennedy called for the US “to put a man on the moon—but only if the rocket works”. Of course we Americans will make things work—whether greater US oil production or missile defenses—that is what America is all about. John McCain has faith in her. I do not think Obama does.

###

Peter R. Huessy is currently the president of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense and national security consulting business. In addition to writing for OpinionEditorials.com, he is also a guest lecturer, appearing at such fine institutions as the School of Advanced International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University, The Institute of World Politics, and The National War College. Mr. Huessy has spent his career working in government organizations and committees, such as the United Nations, The Environmental Fund, Department of the Interior, and the National Defense University Foundation.

geostrategicanalysis@comcast.net