Pages Navigation Menu

Missile Defense Contradiction

Posted by on May 21, 2010 in Congress, Contradiction, Israel, Missile Defense, President Bush, President Obama | 0 comments

I just want to be certain of the U.S. Congress and President’s position on missile defense.  They seem to believe that such a defense system is unworkable, destabilizing and too expensive.  Thus,we were more than willing to give up George W’s hard won defense system in exchange for a mutual reduction in nuclear arms with Russia.

On the other hand, missile defense is entirely workable and cost effective for Israel.  So we are willing to give them $205 million to develop a shield for them.  How is such logic reconciled?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-congress-gives-obama-okay-to-fund-israel-rocket-defense-1.291339

Israel, as well as the U.S., is entitled to develop whatever defense system is necessary to prevent or deter hostile action in a dangerous world.  Why are we in the U.S. depriving ourselves from a workable technology that can save lives?  Because of cost?  That has never stopped Congress before.  Because of some idealistic and academic notion of collective security trumping any need for self reliance?  Maybe.  Or is it also because of some complex problem solving response influenced by a latent socialistic ideal or communist romanticism taught by educators at elite universities when our world leaders were more susceptible to academic persuasion?

Read More

Obama / Bush?

Posted by on Jun 25, 2009 in Ahmadinejad, Democracy, Foreing Policy, Iran, President Bush, President Obama | 0 comments

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is now comparing President Obama to President Bush. Apparently, Ahmadinejad takes issue with our U.S. President recognizing incivility and tyranny when he sees it. For those who support President Obama, this should be an encouraging development.

Recall Hillary Clinton’s warnings during the 2008 campaign that the Presidency is no place to learn on the job? (With regard to foreign policy experience.) Well it seems that while President Obama undeniably required on-the-job training in foreign policy, he appears to be a quick study.
President Obama rightly considered the calculus with recognizing the turmoil in Iran. If he said nothing in response to the images of Iranian citizens being beaten and otherwise oppressed, he would have tacitly validated such actions. This would not only be morally wrong, but antithetical to everything the United States stands for, and was founded upon.
The theoretical “downside” to President Obama (rightly) condemning the Iranian electoral irregularities and suppression of all opposition, involves damage to U.S./Iranian relations. However, the question becomes: “What is the extent of those relations, and how, if at all, can they be any worse?” President Ahmadinejad cares little for the U.S., and cares even less what the world community has said about the Iranian Nuclear Program. Thus, the U.S. and the world community have more to gain if the protesters somehow obtain redress, than we would gain by avoiding the aspersions of the current Iranian government.
Although supporters of President Obama surely cringe at comparisons made between he and President Bush, they should take solace in the statement as a compliment. President Bush may have made foreign policy mistakes, but he always spoke out in favor of taking action to support and secure democracies in a very troubled area of the world. I was not sure if President Obama would follow the same course. He has proven me wrong in this instance, and I gladly accept my error.
Read More