Has Obama Finally Become Dangerous to America by Craig Covello
There are busy news days and there are slow news days, but yesterday the news seemed like a prediction of a perfect storm regarding the safety of our nation. In fact, the very first page of Google blogs was loaded with different political topics suggesting that we are heading into dangerous waters. Specifically:
The president unveiled policy this week, which effectively tells our enemies that we will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries. This policy limits our options in the event of other types of devastating attacks on America, including chemical weapons, which could kill millions of US citizens. Obama did include the caveat that countries must be in compliance with the nonproliferation obligations under international treaties. This means that North Korea and Iran may be exempt from this dramatic policy shift, but that decision is tied to UN governance, not the sovereignty of the United States. The president's new policy will also remove our nuclear arsenal from high alert status because Obama believes that an immediate retaliatory nuclear response by the United States is too dangerous. The head of the US strategic command, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilto disagrees. Last year he speculated on the policy unveiled today by comparing it to someone taking a gun apart and mailing pieces to various parts of the country. He believes that a crisis is not time to decide how to reassemble it.
Iranian Pres. Mohammad Ahmadinejad yesterday accused Pres. Obama of threatening to use "chemical and nuclear" weapons against nations that "do not submit to the greed of the United States". He added
"Be careful, if you step in Bush's path, the nation's response would be the same tooth breaking as the one they gave Bush... Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician. American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns".
It appears that Obama’s UN-based threats of condemnation and possible sanctions do not intimidate this terrorist rogue nation as it continues to develop its nuclear weapons program.
Obama's advisers are rewriting our national security strategy plan to leave out all references to Islamic radicalism as a terrorist threat. This document is still a few weeks away from release, but the White House has acknowledged that references such as
"The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
will be stricken. Apparently, the White House is removing these references in an attempt to garner economic development from Muslim-based countries. Business leaders from more than 40 Muslim countries are heading to Washington this month for a Muslim "Entrepreneurship Summit". National Security Council staff member Pradeep Ramamurthy agrees with the strategy to remove radical Muslim references from our national security strategy document. He said
"Do you want to think about the US as a nation that fights terrorism or a nation you want to do business with?"
Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser disagrees:
"It doesn't appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit. Obama risks seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on security issues at home".
None of this was lost by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during an interview by Shawn Hannity yesterday:
"I think that this is the most unrealistic diplomacy since the late 1920s.... In the 1920s, the democracies were desperate to avoid dealing with reality, they kept designing all sorts of paper documents that were going to end war. And they were going to disarm countries. And the problem they had was that the Japanese, the Italians and Germans and the Russians didn't go along with them... If you notice today, by the way, the Iranians are laughing, literally laughing at the idea of sanctions as they build nuclear weapons. So you have the president over here in a fantasy, and it is a fantasy. It sounds good. It would be wonderful, it just doesn't fit this particular planet. And over here you have North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Al Qaeda and a whole host of other potential enemies who are just methodically doing their thing. And I think the greatest danger is that we will end up confusing words with reality in a way that someday we'll get an awful lot of people killed..... The fact that they're talking about $10 trillion of additional deficits over the next decade, much of it will be owned by the Chinese and the Saudi Arabians, you have to ask yourself to what extent, at an economic level, are we going to face a national security crisis. The fact that they (the Obama administration) are determined to cripple our energy industry at a time when virtually every American realizes that having national security and energy, keeping the money here at home, creating less expensive energy here, is vital to our economic future. And then you combine that with this sort of unilateral disarmament mindset, I think that the term "dangerous" is a very legitimate term to raise about the policies and the lack of understanding of reality in this administration."
Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello. All Rights Reserved. Used with Permission
Labels: Barack Obama, Craig Covello, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Islam, North Korea
posted by Frank T. DeMartini @ 1:14 AM
2 Comments:
Hey Craig..Again another well researched and thought out article. However in this instant I think the President is actually doing something right. The United States has the fire power to destroy most countries quite effectively without using nukes. Between our B-52's,B 1s and B 2's, cruise missles and sea based weapons no country except Russia and China could possibly withstand such an assault. Someone needs to stand up and say, "Yeah we've got them but we'll only use them against a country that also has them and we won't use them first." This is not a new idea. This has been the US's unofficial stand since the 50's. Obama just made it official....for now. Has this weakened the United State's defensive ability?...I don't think so but it has definately turned the nuclear armaggedon clock back a few minutes which is a good thing. The threat of nuclear retaliation never was much of a deterent to terrorists anyway. They could care less what happens to their country of origin anyway. Someone needed to take the first step and as has always been the case the United States has stepped up to the plate as the only true world leader.
One hopes the wishes of the above comment are correct. The problem arises if the analysis is wrong.
As a wise woman once said, and I paraphrase, when two people hold the same idea, only one is really thinking. Thank you for the intellectual holiday
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home