Obama, Kipling, and the Bomb
So, Barack Obama, in pursuit of a world in which nuclear weapons are “obsolete,” just announced that he is “revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions” under which the United States would use such weapons. To set an “example” to other nations, the president also announced that the United States was renouncing the development of any new nuclear weapons.
What sort of “example” do you suppose this sets? To begin to comprehend what the president has in mind, contemplate these two declarations, just reported in The New York Times:
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Got that? A “crippling” cyberattack, an attack with biological or chemical weapons: go for it Ahmed, your country (assuming you have a country) has promised, cross your heart, not to develop or use nuclear weapons so you’re home (almost) free.
We infidels needn’t worry, though, because the president, though he said in one breath that the United States promised not to respond with nuclear weapons even if it suffered a crippling biological, chemical, or cyberattack, said in the next breath that any such threats
could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.”
Are you feeling safer now? 1. We are going to renounce the development of new nuclear weapons even as our enemies around the world eagerly pursue every possible refinement for use in their arsenals; 2. We are abandoning our policy of deliberate, and deliberately off-putting, ambiguity about when and how we would retaliate, stating boldly that we would not respond to a biological, chemical, or cyberattack with nuclear weapons; 3. But we are also going “To preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.”
How do you spell “contradiction”?
One common way of spelling it is “wishful thinking.” That’s how Rudyard Kipling spelled it in his harrowing poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.” They’re a wise lot, those gods of the copybook headings, but humanity has trouble heeding their lessons:
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
And where did that lead?
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
I wondered, frankly, whether there wasn’t a comedian lurking in the White House, for the new Obama doctrine is called the “Nuclear Posture Review.” The posture in question, though, is self-abasement. Nuclear weapons are fearsome things. We wish they didn’t exist. Therefore we will take steps to reduce our threatening posture in order to appear more emollient. Has no one in Obama’s inner clique heard of the Roman military historian Vegetius: “Si vis pacem, para bellum“: “if you want peace, prepare for war.” The possession of weapons facilitates war: no doubt. But history demonstrates that pacifism and signs of weakness precipitate war. The choice, in other words, is between rhetoric that celebrates peace and comity, and policies that actually achieve it. Obama has once again plumped for the former. The result?
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Kipling nailed it: “When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins…”
LOL!
Sounds like nothing more than a restatement of our “no first strike” policy which, ipso facto, would have precluded using nukes against a non-nuke adversary. But thanks for the poem from he ever quotable Kipling. Here’s another – a poetic lament for his son, killed during WWI – which could serve as an epitaph for every soldier killed in Iraq: “If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied.”
No first strike is a stupid policy. There’s a reason why the US has spent 50 years specifically avoiding a declaration of such a policy.
As to fathers lying, the only ones telling lies are the liberals. Bush never lied about this.
What an utterly fatuous comment – linking Bush hatred to the lives spent in WW-II. Yet it is precisely people like you – people who Kipling wrote about – that have not grasped the lessons of history. As Churchill called it, WW-II was the “unnecessary war” – made possible by the lies that the previous generation told itself that led to pacifism. As Europe slept, the Sudetenland was given over and Poland was swallowed.
Evil never dies – it is part of human nature. It just takes on different forms throughout history. It is no longer necessary to have the industrial capacity of the Ruhr valley to raise large standing armies. Simply posessing WMD will do. For the first time in human history, it is now possible for very few people to kill very many people. Obama will accelerate the trend. As are aging nukes are superceded by more compact innocuous forms of terror, do you really think that these will remain complacent.
The Genie is now out of the bottle – despite what they teach in community organizing school.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. JUST AS I REPLIED TO HIM.
THANKS. FOR A SANE MAN NO REWARD IS TOO GREAT.
Wrong, Joseph. No first strike is not the same as what Obama is stating here (not that we necessarily used that as a guideline either, though ‘no first strike’ seems to also be implied by Obama). In the past the United States has declared that biological and chemical attacks would be considered the same as a nuclear attack and would be responded to as such (implying that we would use nuclear weapons in response to biological/chemical weapons). I suppose Obama’s caveat is that it doesn’t apply to those who haven’t signed on to the nonproliferation treaty but overall it is a disappointing and unneccessary commitment to make public, even if this is how he would react in an actual crisis.
Really quite a brilliant mind you have. Our fathers lied. Your ideas would have put enslaved us long ago moron.
Is it hard for you to get out of bed because you’re carrying such a great weight on your shoulders?
You have rocks in the head, that’s why
In 2010 and 2012, as Nixon said in ’68: “Vote like your whole world depended on it.” It does. I hope we make it.
Safer? I don’t know. I’ve never actually kippled although I’ve often wished I had.
The number of things Kipling wrote with commentary about the politics of the past that are 100% identical to today is staggering.
Try MacDonough’s Song, The Islanders, or Danegeld.
I like “The Dykes” myself:
Now we can only wait for the dawn, wait and apportion the blame
These are the dykes our fathers left, but we would not look to the same
Time and again, we were warned of the dykes, time and again we delayed
Now, they may fall, we have slain our sons, as our fathers we have betrayed.
Walking along the wreck of the dykes, watching the work of the seas
These were the dykes our fathers made, to our great profit and ease
But the peace is gone and the profit is gone, with the old sure days withdrawn…
That our own houses will show as strange when we come back in the dawn!
Weapons, toys, clothing, farming practices, all change. Human nature and human politics stay the same. No matter if one is dressed in “plus fours” or “minus fours”.
This administration has just hanged a sign on America’s back:
KICK ME
Rodger Kimbell,
The Obama Administration said what it did anout nukes as an intentional distraction from ObamaCare and unemployment.
People really care about their jobs and their health insurance.
Nukes make people’s eyes glaze over.
Every minute nukes are top headlines is a minute Administration opponents are not motivating voters politically about jobs of health care.
Are there grounds to impeach Obama? At the minimum, we must marginalize this feckless and naive man as quickly as possible. It is of utmost importance to strengthen the position of the often hypocritical and spendthrift GOP. Ann Coulter wisely points out that there are some bad Republicans—but there are also no good Democrats. Obama’s polling numbers have to drop under 40%.
Unfortunately, there is no quorum to support an impeachment and conviction.
David Thompson wrote:
“Ann Coulter wisely points out….”
HA HA HA HA HA
You guys are too much, really. And I love all the attempted uses of “50 cent words” and references to books that litter your tirades. Yes, you guys are a brain-trust of scholars! Keep telling yourselves that!
Too funny. The right is as bereft of ideas as Dubya Bush’s head is of brains.
“50 cent words”
I did notice anyone employing “50 cent words.” There does not seem to be a reincarnated William F. Buckley among us. Were there any particular words that you found particularly challenging?
For the uneducated ignorant left wing moonbat any word with more than two syllables are 50 cent words. After all they are the dumbed down voters following and loving the Affirmative Action BOGUS POTUS .
At least we saw W reading a book once in awhile and his school records were made available. He also kept us safe as did the threat of first strike. O is a nitwit. This all about offering red meat to his followers and nothing about protecting the American people. Sigh.
Wow an ad hominem attack from a liberal. Surprise.
Oops that might be a 50 cent word? 50 dinarii?
Unbelievable. Why don’t we just dump all our weapons in the ocean and open our borders to the whole world? Because that is apparently what President Jesus intends to do.
Well said, Mr. Kimball. There’s a reason I keep a copy of Kipling’s collected poems on my desk next to Sun-Tzu’s “The Art of War”, and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. That being that between the three of them, they have said pretty much everything that need be said on the subject of international relations. (Not to mention dealing with tribal cultures.)
My guess is that The Self-Exalted One has never bothered to read Kipling or Sun-Tzu. I am sure he has never read Machiavelli; after all, “The Prince” warns against heads of state doing, well, basically everything The One does.
I suspect we will end up paying a heavy price for this President’s “education”, both in the past, and on the job.
To see what the bill may end up looking like, I’d suggest reading Arnold Toynbee.
clear ether
eon
I was called many bad names prior to the election of this president. I calmly told people he would eventually attempt to dis-arm this country. I spoke up and said i believed he is a Socialist/Marxist. I stated that i felt his hatred for America was deep and abiding. I was called insane, a right wing nut-job, etc. I was asked if i needed help for “paranoia”. You know all those worse case scenarios that were mentioned then discarded as nonsense, the ravings of racists and “John Bircher’s”. You remember, the cast of characters he hung out with for decades that people willfully ignored. I’m sorry to say…no really I am….well..you know what I am going to say. Good luck.
Barack Obama is not a doctrinaire Marxist. He is an existentially committed Progressive who flirts with some of Saul Alinsky’s ideas. Violence repels him. The narcissist Obama is convinced of his moral and intellectual superiority. He is doing the unwashed masses a favor. They may fail to grasp his brilliance and therefore it is often necessary to deceive them—for their own benefit. Obama graduated from Harvard and the silly ideas of John Rawls and John Kenneth Galbraith pervade the campus atmosphere. The current occupant of the White House considers Marxism as a bit too unsophisticated for his taste.
“Sophisticated” and “Obama” aren’t two words I would put in the same sentence; are you kidding? The guy has as good of a grasp on Rawls as Michelle Antoinette has on olericulture.
Barack Obama is an intellectually shallow man, but perceives himself to be brilliant and sophisticated. He identifies with the Harvard elites. The fact that he could probably never get into this university before the advent of the affirmative action policies of the 1960s is conveniently ignored.
Yelling in the streets and throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers is simply not Obama’s style. Instructing students in Saul Alinsky organizational tactics is fine and dandy—-as long as he does not have to get his hands dirty. Please note that Obama has never been arrested in any sort of street protest. This tells us a lot about the man.
He may not have been arrested because he has neither the energy or courage to demonstrate for anything, he’s a coward, nor spine to stand and fight (others did these things for him during the campaign, and others do these things for him now). These are the traits that make him a pathetic CiC. Look at how he responded to a simple woman’s, simple question on “overtaxation.”
Sophisticated?
Wasn’t he poking his nose on national tv, during that meeting with the GOP at the WH?
Maybe, he was looking for something tasteful?
So according to you. The President is just a little bit pregnant… Sure does seem like he wants to punish America with his baby.
Feeling safe? Since 11/04/08 I don’t feel safe. No one should, the guy(s) – at front and back rooms – just want this country to become a borderless Third World abyss; see who’s leading her into this Third World reality: a Third World President. And it will, sooner or later.
Si vis pacem, para bellum … This has been the successful strategy of the west for over 60 years and the tender backs of many children have been kept from harms way because of it’s soundness. There is a not so quiet revolution underway and it is past time to take a stand. 2010 is critical.
He is risking my family, friends, and nation, for Politically Correct BS.
Another extremely apt post from Roger! Perhaps he will add a note about the differences in national security that are achieved by a policy of massive retaliation for any attack versus the current policy of “proportionate retaliation.”
Roger should use Kipling’s “Grave of the Hundred Dead” as an illustration. The tribes on the Burma frontier became much more peaceful toward the British once they learned that the British would kill at least one hundred of their warriors for each British soldier that the tribes killed.
Since the end of WW2 the USA has acted as the worlds nuclear policeman. Despite the grumbling of other nations the stability offered by Americas non-proliferation policy made the world a safer place. Then, on June 4, 2009 in his speech in Cairo, Obama reversed American policy and the nuclear genie has left the bottle. ” No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. ” With the abdication of Americas role as a bulwark against nuclear proliferation countries all over the world are looking to build nuclear weapons. It s only a matter of time before a rogue state has The Bomb. Those that think Obama has been a disaster as President should realize his lack of courage and his lack of foresight have put the whole world at risk. Obamas legacy will be a world less safe than the one he inherited as President.
A “crippling” cyber attack would work out best for those in charge– resulting in no internet, no radio, no accurate information. And it would be impossible to pin it on anybody.
The Google guy working out of the White House (Google who helped China with their internet control) might know how to deflect blame onto a rogue hacker state, that could result in something beneficial to both the US and China.
What is frightening to me is this: when he got elected, I formed a model of what I would expect him to do, if he indeed was what I thought he was, ie, a radical leftist. So far he has not diappointed me a bit. And he’s only a year and a quarter into his term.
Published in October 1919 when the poet was 53 years old, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” has proved enduringly popular, despite the fact that copybooks disappeared from schoolrooms in Britain and America during, or shortly after, World War 2. A copybook was an exercise book used to practice one’s handwriting in. The pages were blank except for horizontal rulings and a printed specimen of perfect handwriting at the top. You were supposed to copy this specimen all down the page. The specimens were proverbs or quotations, or little commonplace hortatory or admonitory sayings—the ones in the poem illustrate the kind of thing. These were the copybook headings.
As Margaret Thatcher said, “The facts of life are conservative.”
Don’t mean nothing, if the nation comes under WMD attack Obama, POTUS (PBUH) will renege on this statement like he has on all others.
The outrage and desire for like on like retribution by the American people will make this whole line of bullshit moot.
If the idea is to stop nuclear weapons proliferation then taking the nuke umbrella away from allies such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan just makes it more likly these nations will pursue nuclear arms.
This is just empty rhetoric designed to feed his supporters who believe stuff like this.
I’m sure public outrage would force Obama’s hand and that there would be a nuclear response. However, that is not the point. The nuclear arsenal’s most important role is at a deterrent to prevent that attack from happening in the first place. It is a threat and Obama just eliminated most of its strategic value. I wonder what direction that moron points his cards when he plays poker?
While playing poker? Does he know what a deck of cards is?
He’s not playing with a full one anyway.
BTW, about these two quotes in the article Roger Kimball cites: these are the czars’ statements, since I bet BHO doesn’t understand the meaning of any one of them, in either isolation or combination with eachother.
It seems strange that the leader of a nation already at war for the last eight years would jump up and talk of taking away the nations most deadly weapons and state He would not use them if attacked with the same deadly weapons.
It’s as though he has surrendered to apotential enemy before they have even attacked!
Note also: the Russians have an advantage in conventional weapons systems.
Obama’s national security giveaway. A whole lot of world leaders (on both sides) are thinking right now: “would Obama do anything at all if we took out xxxx [insert city in U.S. or allied country of your choice].” Taiwan, Japan, and Seoul are doing some big time worrying right now.
Actually, no, the Russians do not have a conventional weapon advantage. Their jets barely fly, and their submarines are more dangerous to their crews than to their enemies. Russian tanks are death-traps when put up against first-line Western equipment like the M1-A1, or even the Leopards and Chieftains.
We proved in 1991 and 2003 that Soviet military doctrine (which is still used by Russia today) folds up like a cheap suit when met with American doctrine. The United States can project force into Afghanistan. Russian can project force (on a good week) into Georgia (the one next to Russia, not the one in the US).
I’d say Putin has a pretty good grip on those realities, which is why he is so eager to enable Venezuela and Iran. And really any other nation that is willing to go up against the US — not because he really thinks those nations can really win against the US, but rather because they serve as strategic distractions.
Let’s not dismiss the Russians out of hand based on their weapons’ performance in Iraq in 2003. Look at Georgia last year — their performance was much better, both qualitatively and tactically, than I think we would have predicted. They have been fighting in the Caucasus for nearly 20 years and in many respects have come back from the post-Soviet Union malaise.
Actually, Russia is using the tried and true method of fighting wars by proxy as they did in the Korean and Viet Nam Wars. When Russia tries to fight a war on its own, as it did in Afghanistan, it loses.
Soviets had conventional ground forces advantage in only one place during a brief period that ended in 1989 – Fulda Gap.
That’s it. Everywhere else on planet Earth US forces had superiority.
Since the breakup Soviets can barely defend themselves, much less project. As Mark noted the Georgians embarrassed the Russians Putin was furious.
David Thompson #8
If there were grounds to impeach this president, you’d know it. Unless you can list the elements of a crime, you can’t impeach him. Let’s not waste our time.
Right now, we have ephemeral stories coming out of the woodwork, and we should just refuse to bite. The issues of the day are how we are going to provide for our future security, and promote the general welfare. The Democrats would vastly prefer to talk about Michael Steel or Sarah Palin or Jane Fonda (!) or “birthers” or best of all, what violent nuts those Tea Partiers are, rather than what they (the Democrats) have done to the issues of the day.
The bloggers, bless ‘em, have held firm on their fact-checking. The next step is to push aside the silly season stories, and change the subject back. I wish somebody would ask Maxine Waters a few pointed questions about health insurance reform and this country’s nuclear policy.
Is it possible to impeach a president for gross incompetence? Does the process always require an alleged criminal act? Alas, I realize that this is not likely to occur. Best we simply focus on weakening his presidency. The elections in November are crucial.
You are correct. Impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and removal from office are political acts and not judicial ones. What constitutes a “high crime” and what constitutes a “misdemeanor” are fairly open questions.
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the dear deceased;
And the epitaph drear:
A fool lies here, who tried to hustle the East.
–Kipling
The Iranian mullahs do not fear death for themselves: indeed martyrdom in jihad is the only assured path to paradise. The only thing that they do respect is a threat to their clans and homeland.
Let me also point out that we are not the only potential targets here: the Iranians have their eye on the Saudi’s big-time. How would/will Obama respond if/when the mullahs send armies into Riyadh (or simply blow it away and march into the oil fields)? Is Saudi Arabia still a strategic ally, under our “nuclear umbrella”?
If Obama won’t promise to use our nuclear power to protect our allies, we’re going to see a BIG buildup in the Middle East. And God Help Us if the Indians and Pakistani’s get going at each other!
The “Posture” in the “Nuclear Posture Review” involves bending over.
Thanks to Thomas_L….. for his disquisition on copy books. I had not known about that.
If the U.S. won’t even hold out a threat of using nuclear weapons in response to an attack on the U.S., what threat does it offer to protect Israel or any ally from a massive attack of anykind? Obama basically just signed away the ‘west’ and millions of lives to any and all dictators.
Roger,
I’m just now reading one of your books, and see you quoting George Kennan several times. I wonder what you imagine Kennan would think about this: (the video of US helicopters shooting up Iraqis for fun)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42b_1270489420
or indeed about your present post on a website that revels in starting wars.
regarding those US helicopters shooting up Iraqi’s for fun…check out this: Cleverly-edited video becomes anti-Military infomercial for world’s dumbest blogger and his traditional posse of useful idiots
After you read it, then come back and admit to what a useful idiot you feel like.
Or don’t. And reveal what a disingenuous troll you are.
2. Joseph, my memory is rusty, but I don’t recall the U.S. ever having a “no first strike” policy. The policy was to never renounce the use of a first strike, coupled with deliberate ambiguity about a U.S. response under a variety of possible scenarios. Preemption? I don’t know. But I do know this: I feel less safe, and have yet to see any analysis of how Obama’s lower warhead levels in the new START are adequate for deterrence and a rapidly shifting, increasingly unpredictable, global nuclear power balance.
Above all, national security policy needs to address the world AS IT IS, not as we wish it to be, or what we hope in might be in the future. Sigh.
The sadness of evil men is that they believe no truth that does not paint the world in their colors.
Eric Amble , The Schrimer Inheritance
Remember Hillary’s ad about who you want answering the phone in the middle of the night. It turns out she was right-NOT OBAMA. He continues to erode the security of the USA. There is only one comforting thought. Obama’s promises mean nothing. Almost every campaign promise he made has been reversed. Let us hope that if we actually encounter a horrendous act that he will open his eyes and start to act like the President and protect this nation. Let us pray that it will not be too late.
If Obama is so intent on limiting the use of nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it be a good idea to let Israel have the bunker buster bombs that it has requested? Then they wouldn’t have to use nukes to take out Iranian plants.
It seems that we cannot even use the term liberal for this naif in the WH and his crew in Congress. Surely not Progressive ala TR. No, socialist pacifist tyranny is more like it. So we have domestic turmoil that looks more like Venezuela or Somalia than America. This crew would not be recognized by Truman, Scoop Jackson or Sam Nunn. Domestically they are fiscal nightmare with taxing , spending, Cap and Trade upcoming, amnesty, and now this horrid Munich style nuclear policy. What next from this Chicago thug? Oh, a deal with Iran and N.Korea whereby we apolgize to them??
Great column. Lovely to see my old friend Kipling used this way. Unfortunately what Flavius Vegetius Renatus actually wrote is not so pithy: “Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum”. It appears in the “epitoma rei militaris”
Thanks for your work
Here is some light on the subject:
Obama’s policy of slapping allies
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 2, 2010; A19
What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?
If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.
Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?
Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the United States and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.
And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the United States) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.
For those who know no history — or who believe that it began on Jan. 20, 2009 — and therefore don’t know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here’s the back story:
In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.
Afterward, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn’t covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and it will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement and the occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).
Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain — a nation that has fought and bled with us for the past decade, and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.
Of course, given how the administration has treated other allies, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised.
– Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region — common language, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.
– Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
– The Hondurans still can’t figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chávez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society — Honduras’s Congress, Supreme Court, church and army — that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their constitution.
But the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. “We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops,” writes Bruce Anderson in London’s Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.
Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the United States, to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: “[Obama] is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there.”
I’m not personally inclined to neuropsychiatric diagnoses, but Manning’s guess is as good as anyone’s. How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.
——————————————————–
Wasn’t one of the British Kings known as “Mad King George”? It seems to me that the US has to have one as well, even though his first name isn’t George.
If Im correct, the communist Vladamir Putin is in communist Venezuela with the communist scumbag Hugo Chavez. Seems to be Vlad and Hugo are planning for Hugo to become the first Latin American country with a NUCLEAR BOMB. If you think IMADUMBJIHAD in Iran is bad enough, we apparently have Hugo planning on starting over with what Castro and Che Guevarra failed to accomplish in the Cuban missle crisis of 1962. All while the Moslem communist in the White(I bet he hates that) House fiddles and plots to destroy America from within. Dont be surprised within the next 2-5 years stories about Chavez trying to buy fissionable material from either Russia or Red China. Funny thing is, the MOOSELIMBS hate the commies as much as they hate the west. Of course then, no one ever accused a commie of having brains. Even Lenin called them useful idiots.
By the way-for anyone advocating impeachment, it will NEVER HAPPEN. Can you imagine Nancy the Bolshevik bitch Piglosi, Henry Wackoff, Charlie the RangHo, none of them will lose there seats because there districts are composed of the biggest idiots on the planet. None of them will REMOVE the Onescum from office. Greed, Bernie Sanders, Leahy, Upchuck Schumer, Turban Durban-not one of them would vote for REMOVAL. Has anyone bothered to ask-WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE TRILLION DOLLAR “STIMULUS” $? Have any guesses? Like, building an army to put AMERICA under MARTIAL LAW when the onescum LOSES CONGRESS IN NOVEMBER? Dont forget-Rahmbonehead saying something about “not wasting a crisis”? Or how many remember what BILL AYERS told the FBI informant Larry Grathwol? Someting about having to KILL 25-30 million who would oppose a communist takeover? The warning signs are all there. We better be prepared to deal with it. Some of us are.
Most of you have apparently failed to read the entire interview. The statements are in fact hawkish but desguised behind a dovish veil. What you have failed to understand is that obama wanted to let iran and north korea know that the united states government will not fail to use nuclear weapons against them if necessary even if they had not attacked the united states first.but he wanted to do that indirectly. So, he said it as part of a pseudo-essence, that of supposedly restricting the use of nuclear weapons. That is the reason that obama called these rogue nations outliers to whom the new measures do not apply. That is the art of war in practice. It is not a coincidence that the new treaty is to be signed while obama is agressively seeking new sanctions against iran. Obama wanted to put them on notice without being accused by pacifists that he is potentially on a path to nuclear preemptive strike. Contrary to what you have erroneously assumed, obama is not dismantling our arsenal; In fact, obama has ordered a much speedier development of nuclear bunker-buster warheads initiated by bush, and obama made such a decision with iran in mind. Obama does not really believe that the iranian leadership can be talked out of their ways, but after going to war on non-factual premises in iraq, the new rituals in international diplomacy is to try to talk even with the craziest dogs before shooting them dead. Every terrorist who thought initially thought that obama was a dove is very disappointed today. Why? Because the frequence of drone use has more than doubled since obama assumed office.pakistan resisted all pressure from the previous administration to take on the taliban, yet when obama came to office, his stance was that all military aids to pakistan will cease unless they show a consistent commitment to battling the taliban. These facts do not point to a dove in the white house; but we are so used to jhon wayne in the texan style bravado that we fail to see strenght in the absence of chest-beating.
Buddy, go elsewhere – the Monty Python Flying Circus stopped taking submissions for new acts about 25 years ago – you’re really, really late…
On the other hand… could it be that your piece is actually a clever, neo-retro-post-deconstructionist explanation/ parody of the Deliberator’s twisted mental processes?
If you intended it so – congratulations -
If you are serious – you have a serious problem -
Wasn’t it the nuclear weapons used to end WW-II that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives that would have been lost during the invasion of Japan? Obama doesn’t care about the number of American lives that potentially will be lost due to his new “nuclear policy.” He is more interested in enslaving his countrymen through entitlement.
Thank G_d Obama wasn’t president in 1945 or millions of American descendents of WWII vets wouldn’t be here today. Our forefathers would have died on the invasion beaches of Japan…
President delusional has just made a new rule of handi-capping which idealistically states that one ought not bring a gun to a knife fight for the high moral grounds of setting the peaceful example. Whenever he preaches this never-gonna-happen, we can hear that smack-head John Lennon singing “Imagine” in the background. “Imagine” just has to be the theme song for the progressive left.
If only…Obama had read and believed:
‘Norman and Saxon’ by Kipling
He would not be shocked to hear people say:
‘That’s not Fair Dealing.’
Right before they make it plain to their
CongressCritters that they want him Gone.
No Impeachment required, any more than with Nixon,
who said ‘I am resigning my Office because I have
lost my support in Congress.’
I wonder if the Won will speak tearfully of
his Sainted mother, as Nixon did.
President Obama
Washington DC
September 29, 2009
Dear Mr. President;
Let us talk about The Bomb. Two words, only one meaning. Certain death of civilization. The end of the world as we know it. No sane human being wants to start World War Three, and end the world in three hours. We must stress that word sane. The ability to categorize ones own value, and the value of the future existence of the world, again as we know it, against some temporarily desired outcome of a strategic goal; this is how we determine “sanity” in the world of the Bomb.
My father, and tens of thousands of other men, trained on how to deploy the only artillery piece made to fire a nuclear tipped shell – so called a tactical nuclear weapon – the purpose of this particular artillery piece was to ensure that should an invasion of the US ensue after an initial attack we; or who ever was left, would be able to shell the advancing enemy with a nuclear tipped artillery shell. The men who learned how to maintain and fire this weapon were our last line of defense in this scenario. A perfectly sane solution to an insane reality; nuke your own country to keep the enemy from advancing on your position. The stone cold fact is this is not the 1950’s any more; we don’t need “Atom Annie,” as she was so lovingly called, by the men who served her. Hell, we don’t even need to be alive; it is now well documented that, the then Soviet Union and the United States have semi-automatic systems – such that even if the other sides command structure is wiped out in a surprise attack we, or they, will be able to retaliate. Think of it as a dead man switch for Nuclear War.
As time wore on the nuclear club has grown France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, even South Africa had the bomb for a short period of time. Now North Korea has the bomb; but it is having trouble with it’s missile guidance systems – would you want to be in Japan these days? Iran, too, is on the cusp of deploying a bomb. Remember that in order to keep the peace in a nuclear world all countries must fear not just the enemy, but the weapon itself. It is difficult for me to see how a country on the brink of starvation and technically still at war with one of its neighbors satisfies the most basic need of mutually assured destruction; equally, I can’t see how Iran, that is the Middle East equivalent of Walmart for terrorists, has anything, but death and destruction on it’s mind.
I bet your thinking missile defense will protect us or Israel. I welcome the forethought, but it is misguided. If it works for ducks it would work for Nuclear Weapons. If you said decoy you get the gold star. When the day comes that Iran decides to attack Israel, as the nutcase who runs that country says “to wipe Israel off the map,” an extremely easy task with very few nuclear weapons, it won’t just send one, it will send hundreds of decoy missiles to confuse and overwhelm their defensive systems; and on that day Israel will cease to exist, and then Iran will cease to exist; plus a few extra mainly muslim cities just for good measure. Remember, once someone attacks a country the size of Israel with a nuclear weapon it has no hope of reconstituting itself. Given that circumstance where is the downside in telling the Islamo Fascist exactly how one feels about the situation. As they say, nothing says screw you like a mushroom cloud. Again a perfectly sane reaction to an insane circumstance. Think of how you would feel if someone killed your family member? How about a million family members?
There is no surviving a nuclear war. Our only hope is making certain that the other side, or sides as it were, are sane enough to recognize this fact, and we and they act accordingly. The upside is that wider wars are not possible in a nuclear age; the downside is proxy wars are (Korea, Afghanistan Part 1 and Part 2, Angola, Central America, Vietnam, Iraq v. Iran, etc.) Unfortunately, if we attempt to disarm on our own, or one of our prior allies, or even our enemies decides to; what will stop new enemies from getting the bomb? What will stop a future President, Premier, or Dictator from launching a unilateral nuclear attack? Certain nationwide death. If someone launches a nuclear attack they will not only lose what they have now; but their future. Do not upset this apple cart Mr. President; you are but a temporary steward of this Country; at some point you may put this country into someones hands that you do not trust – much the same way I don’t trust you – but I do trust that you love your children. And that’s all I, and the enemy, needs to know in this matter. But, it is tough for me to see the love that the Iranian or North Korean leadership has for it’s children. Without that fear of loss I cannot see how if push came to shove they would behave in a sane manner with nuclear weapons. Do you?
Respectfully,
I think k. pablo could have chosen a better poem:
” 1. k. pablo
Kipling nailed it: “When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins…”
LOL!”
Here’s a quote from a different Kipling poem:
“….
“His feet are swift to tumult,
His hands are slow to toil,
His ears are deaf to reason,
His lips are loud in broil.
He knows no use for power
Except to show his might.
He gives no heed to judgment
Unless it prove him right.
Because he served a master
Before his Kingship came,
And hid in all disaster
Behind his master’s name,
So, when his Folly opens
The unnecessary hells,
A Servant when He Reigneth
Throws the blame on some one else.
“His vows are lightly spoken,
His faith is hard to bind,
His trust is easy boken,
He fears his fellow-kind.
The nearest mob will move him
To break the pledge he gave –
Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
Is more than ever…!”
(Last word omitted for politically correct reasons.)
Anybody see any similarity to the current POTUS?
Just exactly when and how did some people here missed the enduring and, well, crippling hatred “president” Obama has for United States of America? This is one more piece in a puzzle he is puting together to once and for all emasculate the country, its power, its ideas, its very raison d’etre.
What a shame. The voters will now learn a very, very hard lesson about what it means to give ironclad control of the government to the radical left. At home and abroad, disaster looms and everyone outside of government and the “mainstream” media know it.
The eagle on the United States’ seal holds an olive branch in one claw and thirteen arrows in the other. These two tools must both be available for use under appropriate conditions. Unilaterally, our president has thrown away our nuclear arrows.
This alleged demi-god does not know the first thing about negotiations. A wise negotiator does not give up important negotiating tools without securing something of equal or greater value in return.
Our president, instead, seeks to bargain away OUR lives, OUR fortunes, and OUR sacred honor to feed the fires of HIS own narcissistic needs.
God save us and our Republic from such a twit.
It sounds like an invitation to America’s enemies to attack America.
Send the the asshole back to the ghetto
Okay, guys, I’m getting a little worried now.
Obama and Karzai are both reeling around punchdrunk on their own words.
Drugs? Mental illness? Have they snapped?
Clearly they are saying shocking things and both believe what they are saying are indications of genius.
All that may save us are checks and balances. I hope Obama tries to put the Supreme Court on the spot again. As for Congress, we’ll need to take care of that disaster in seven months.
Obama is an actor of ordinary ability playing the part of a president with extraordinary ambitions. So far the movie has not lived up to the hype and voters will make sure that there will be no sequel.
Mr. Obama, as most people recognize, cannot be trusted. I believe that his psychopathy is such that he disregards people whether he disagrees with them or, surprisingly, even if he agrees with them. He has no loyalty, perhaps not even to his family.
In this regard, I have predicted in other forums that he will indeed go to war with Iran – just before the 2012 election. Most Americas would not seek a change of administration during an active conflict.
Because Mr. Obama is “slick” simply do not consider anything he says as veridical. Watch what he does. For example, words in support of Israel are completely hollow in the face of his COMPLETE embargo of weapons systems to Israel from the day he entered office. He canceled the F-22 Raptor aircraft so that it would not be sold to Israel and Japan. In other words, he put nine thousand Americans out of work for the sake of his foreign policy goals and his opposition to the defense industry. Seems right!
As an aside from the above comments, I would like to say that I am continually awed by the erudition of some of the comments on PJM, not just the features pieces themselves. I continue receiving an invaluable education from so many of you. Thank you for being there.
moderateGuy
You’ve got that right. Pres. Osama wants to take this country down. Once you see what he is up to, his crazy decisions begin to make sense.
People, we have elected a stupid man to the White House. He hates America the same way envious foreigners hate us, and for the same reason: because he does not identify with us. He’s treating our allies with contempt, and he’s following the same strategy of appeasement that worked so well for Europe in the late 1930s. If you voted for this man, then PLEASE admit that you made a horrendous mistake, figure out what it is you did wrong, and don’t ever, ever do it again. America is a great nation, but even America can’t stand leadership like this for very long. 2012 can’t get here fast enough.
Lawrence, many of us knew what and who Obama was back in 2008 and spoke loudly on the boards and blogs; not enough Americans listened to us. Instead, they (like Obama) only thought of themselves and how good they’d feel if they were part of an “historic” and “unprecedented” event.
Now the USA has an incompetent politician in the Oval Office who will give away our military advantage and throw our country into the next war, all in the name of “peace”, as Chamberlain did in the 1930s. Except Chamberlain was smarter.
Obama isn’t the erudite intellectual the left presents him as. He is a mediocre politician with an average IQ who can read a teleprompter but can’t name anyone who ever played on the White Sox baseball team.
If we take the house back in 2010 we can impeach him. The FBI has him on tape re Blagoivich. Vote Republican and let’s get rid of this moron.
I ‘guess’ America is lucky no one believes him.
My advice for Obama is another Kipling poem:
If
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
………
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!
ONE OF THE DUMBEST AND MOST STUPIDEST OF PRESIDENTS TO EVER OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE.
THIS IS DETERRENCE.
SOUNDS MORE LIKE AN INVITATION.
COULD SOMEONE SHOW ME THE EXIT. I HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE.
while we’re quoting kipling this might be applicable.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/special/oldissue.html
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” – Ronald Reagan
To David, no. 59:
Ronald Reagan undertook a massive US arms build up, did not hesitate to use US forces to secure American interests, deployed nuclear weapons in Europe in the face of massive demonstrations to deter the Soviets, and embarked on a massive missile-defense program to make offensive nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete”. Under Reagan, the US built a 600 ship Navy, greatly strenghened the other armed forces, and approached negotiations from a position of strength.
Obama is doing the exact opposite. Unilaterally declaring no use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical, cybernetic or biological attack simply makes it that much more likely the US will be attacked with such weapons. What’s more, Obama is weakening US non-nuclear forces by cancelling critically-needed weapons such as the F-22. (The US cannot fight effectively without air superiority).
What’s more, refusing to develop new nuclear weapons and refusing to test the existing stockpile makes the US nuclear arsenal unreliable, possibly unuseable – the last thing you want to do if you want to deter someone from attacking you.
Finally, if under Obama the US will not use nuclear weapons to deter chemical and other attacks on US territory, then one can be sure that the US will also not use such weapons in reply to attacks on our allies. In other words, Obama has just folded up the US nuclear umbrella. Every country that relied on the US for protection against attack with WMD should, if they value their own security, develop their own nuclear weapons. Thanks to Obama, we may see a world where nuclear weapons will proliferate as never before.
However, I am very pleased to see you quote Reagan on nuclear weapons. I look forward to further quotes from Reagan on health care and taxes.
I worked on the Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM)
which was a very useful bargaining chip when negotiating
with the USSR, particularly after the Russian Rulers saw
a video of a test shot, with the missile flying through
a predetermined window of the target house.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are all deterrents;
Hopefully the US has a replacement FUD generator
in the works, now that it is backing away from
the nuclear option.
Obama has not addressed the real problem at all. Muslims worldwide lay helpless and prostrate before jack-booted imperial soldiers of the U.S. military who keep them down while American corporations steal their oil. Osama Bin Laden, however repugnant his tactics, if standing against this injustice. If we want real peace we must demand corporations treat third world people with justice and not use the military to put down challenges to corporate greed.
If this were true Obama (rhymes with Osama) would have ordered every soldier, sailor, airman and marine to retreat from the middle east and points unknown; careful you don’t step in it friend.
Would just like to point out there are actually some solid arguments made by career military analysts (aka, not lefty professors) in favor of BO’s recent nuclear posture review. Scott Sagan, William Arkin and others have all come out against the longstanding US policy of “Calculated Ambiguity” – that is, of being ambiguous about when we might use our nukes.
I suggest you look up and read these guys on your own (they’re both quite smart and firmly in the Realist camp), but to summarize the main point really quick:
1. The current policy, which insinuates that we WOULD use nuclear weapons to counter a CBW attack, might get called on its bluff by one of our enemies. What would happen if someone used a chemical weapon against US soldiers in the field, for instance? Under the current policy we’d have a choice between responding with nukes, or looking like we had no backbone. We might be forced to use nukes just to reassure our allies that when the US military makes a threat, we actually meant it.
2. The new Obama doctrine still allows us the option to use nukes in a situation where we feel it’s warranted. Read this paragraph taken straight from the 2010 NPR:
“In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses CBW against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response-and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable. Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustments in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons threat and US capacity to counter that threat.”
That last sentence is a bit lawyer-y, but it essentially says that in the event of a truly devastating biological attack, we reserve the right to do anything we feel like. SO for anyone considering such an attack, the deterrent value of our arsenal still exists.
We have spent billions of dollars and lost many lives in order to ensure our capitalist democracy. However, a change in our attitude and direction with regard to our policies has also gone a long way toward making the world a safter place. Although, we need to remain vigilant at all times as there are people out there that continue to work against our values and freedoms. Good article, thanks.