RSS Feed MenuToday, at the Foreign Policy Initiative’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blasted the president’s decision to scrap plans for a US missile defense shield, saying that Obama “blew it.” Kyl also made clear he will lead the opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the Senate.
Kyl said that he not only plans to vote against any move to reconsider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), but would lead the offensive against its ratification.
When asked by moderator Bob Kagan what his response would be to the reintroduction of the CTBT to the Senate, the Senate Minority Whip said that his “guess is that they [the Democrats] will submit this treaty, and my hope and expectation is that it will be defeated again.”
However, when pressed on this matter by an audience member, Senator Kyl laid out his intentions in even stronger language: “I will not only vote against it, I will lead the charge against it. I will do everything in my power to see that it is defeated.”
Obama had stated during the 2008 election campaign that the introduction of the CTBT for ratification would be a foreign policy priority under his administration: “As president, I will reach out to the Senate to secure the ratification of the CTBT at the earliest practical date.”
Kyl was more conciliatory on the matter of reducing the number of nuclear arms in the world. As Obama chairs a U.N. Security Council session on nuclear disarmament and arms control this week, Sen. Kyl indicated that he and other Republicans were willing to compromise:
I think that Senate Republicans will join Democrats on one big condition: that a nuclear modernization program accompanies [a reduction in nuclear arms]. We need to bring our nuclear deterrent program back to the status it held twenty years ago… If there is a credible nuclear modernization program in next year’s budget, I think Republicans will support it.
Kyl also accused Obama of being too concerned with what Putin prefers, rather than what the United States’ NATO allies want. In fact, he said, the administration’s first consideration “with regards to Eastern Europe policy… is, ‘how will Moscow react?’”
The Senator from Arizona bemoaned what he called the undercutting of our “natural allies” in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for improved relations with Russia. “We did everything wrong if we wanted to send a signal that they shouldn’t even think about extending influence over our NATO allies… We blew it!”
Kyl suggested that this move simply emboldened Russia, pointing out that despite this recent concession, Putin insists that “relations are still tainted by remnants of the previous era” and that more concessions were necessary. “Countries like North Korea will take note,” he added, “If the freedom and security of Russia’s neighbors is threatened today, is Obama Carter or Reagan?”
Churl // Sep 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm
This is not surprising. Obama brings to the Presidency only the experience of a race hustling Chicago ward heeler and operates accordingly. An understanding of global strategy is simply beyond his pay grade.
Yes, ottovbs et al., I know Bush, Cheney, Halliburton….
Derek // Sep 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I’m surprised he didn’t tell a monkey joke and question Obama’s patriotism.
SFTor1 // Sep 21, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“Race hustling Chicago ward heeler?”
Your characterization of Barack Obama is shameful.
I think an apology to the forum is in order.
Really.
SFTor1 // Sep 21, 2009 at 5:33 pm
As far as I understand scrapping the original scheme was recommended by Gates and Mullen. Are they race hustling ward heelers too?
balconesfault // Sep 21, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“moderator Bob Kagan”
Say no more …
MSheridan // Sep 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Churl, if you don’t like the President’s decision, say why you don’t like it. Attacking the President on a personal level isn’t a policy argument–it’s just a statement of dislike. As it is, those who agree or disagree with you on the policy cannot have any idea if your position is well thought through, or just a kneejerk reaction against a politician you clearly despise.
balconesfault // Sep 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm
MSheridan – ahh – but the nice thing is he can use virtually the same comment for responding to any article here, thus saving the trouble of, you know … thinking!
Churl // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:00 pm
MSheridan: I don’t like Obama’s decision on ballistic missile defense in Central Europe because:
(1)it is a kick in the teeth to leaders in Poland and the Czech Republic who expended considerable political capital on the BMD issue (at home and in the rest of the EU) because they believed that the US wanted a strategic presence in their countries which would help resist Russian pressures for some re-integration into a reincarnation of the old Eastern Bloc.
(2)the US gets nothing in return from Putin, whose appetite is now whetted for further concessions.
(3) the decision is of a piece with Obama’s cozying up to Chavez and meddling in Honduras, where constitutional means were used to prevent yet another Latin American “Presidency for Life” for a leftist dictator.
Churl // Sep 22, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Further to the matter disliking Obama’s decision on European missile defense, herewith some other thoughts and a roundup of comment from Europeans:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/europeans-ambivalent-about-obama%E2%80%99s-missile-defense-u-turn/
I know, I know, right wing blogger etc. etc…. However, the referenced articles are of some interest
ctbtnotnpt // Sep 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm
The NPT was ratified in 1967. You’re thinking of the CTBT. Worst. Prime Minister of Canada. Ever.
MSheridan // Sep 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Churl, thanks for the response.
First, our primary responsibility is not to the political careers of those foreign leaders. It is to our own national interest, which the missile defense program, as constituted, did not serve. The interests of allied nations ARE legitimate secondary responsibilities, but even there the majority of citizens in those countries did not support placing the missiles there in the first place.
Second, the missiles were presented as a shield against Iranian nukes that not only do not currently exist, wouldn’t be able to reach those countries with any delivery system Iran possesses. If Iran did have the nukes and the delivery system, we don’t have the technology to stop them from that distance and have no prospect of developing it. The tech in question was vaporware–it had NEVER demonstrated the capability to target, hit, and disable missiles in the easiest tests our defense contractors could devise. The replacement system suggested actually does work to stop missiles at the shorter ranges it will be operating at. Now I realize that most thinking people knew that the proposed system was actually aimed at Russia, not Iran, despite all the denials that that was the case. You have said as much yourself. Putting a system in place that ratchets up the tension with Russia in no way seems to me to be in our national interest.
Daniel Larison, a writer at The American Conservative, has written about this subject extensively in the recent past and I agree with just about everything he’s written: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/
FosterBoondoggle // Sep 23, 2009 at 12:35 am
Fascinating. Judging from the comments, it seems as though there are far more progressive than conservative readers of this blog. The right wing has been reduced to the know-nothing tea partiers and a handful of intellectuals preaching to, umm, … no one.
Churl // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:26 am
MSheridan, of course the missile switch was not only a personal affront to the politicians in Poland and the Czech Republic, it was a double-cross to the people of those countries who believed that we were dependable allies.
“…most thinking people knew that the proposed system was actually aimed at Russia….”
A defensive system is not “aimed” at anybody, it just sits there waiting to ward off attack. Why should the Russians worry about a passive system? I’ve wondered about this since the “Star Wars” days of the Reagan administration.
Some further thoughts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426880110463194.html
balconesfault // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:43 am
A defensive system is not “aimed” at anybody, it just sits there waiting to ward off attack. Why should the Russians worry about a passive system? I’ve wondered about this since the “Star Wars” days of the Reagan administration.
Because you are operating from the presumption that the US would never launch a pre-emptive strike on the Russians.
The Russians have a cultural history which includes two brutal invasions/occupations within the last 200 years … and thus assume that anyone with the power to strike Russia may well decide to do that.
Thus, just as our nukes would be launched if we ever saw their nukes on the way … their nukes would be launched if they ever saw ours on the way.
A long-range missle defense system that wasn’t just a DOD contractor’s wet dream would destabilize this balance. The Russians would now lack deterrent to the US offensive capability.
And even if they have their own significant doubts as to the efficacy of such a program – the US moving forward with it will inevitably be taken as a sign a bad faith – an intention to gain an “upper hand” on Russia that strikes to the core of their ability to defend theirselves from America. Of course that both scares them and pisses them off.
sinz54 // Sep 23, 2009 at 10:29 am
MSheridan: “I realize that most thinking people knew that the proposed system was actually aimed at Russia, not Iran, despite all the denials that that was the case.”
I don’t agree with that at all.
A system with just TEN interceptors cannot possibly damage the effectiveness of Russia’s deterrent, with all the hundreds of missiles they have. True, such a system could be used to intercept an accidental launch from Russia, or a launch by some missile commander who went nuts like in “Dr. Strangelove.” But shouldn’t Russia want such a system for such a scenario?
The REAL reason why Russia opposes this missile defense system is that it prevents Russia from blackmailing the Czech Republic and Poland: “Fall under our sphere of influence or we’ll launch a few missiles at you.”
Russia has always considered Eastern Europe to be their sphere of influence, and they are furious that the U.S. is willing to defend those countries against a Russian attack.
So be it.
As far as I’m concerned, Russia’s sphere of influence should be just RUSSIA.
That’s all they deserve.
Russia has been imperialist since the days of Peter the Great. Let’s keep our boot on their neck, just like we have kept our boot on Germany’s neck.
MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:16 pm
sinz54, I have considerable respect for your past contributions to these pages, but I think you are mistaken on this one. First and foremost, I think installing a system that doesn’t work is a bad idea on the face of it. It wouldn’t accomplish either of the prevention goals you suggested, but will still create tensions all the same. That’s a lose-lose scenario. Second, if Russia is going to blackmail any near neighbors with military force, we can safely assume they won’t threaten with nukes. Nukes are expensive, would draw overwhelming negative response from the rest of the world, and would be overkill, because their conventional non-nuclear force would do the job just as well. When Russia had the capacity to pour a couple hundred thousand soldiers into Georgia last year had it wanted to (its standing army is 1.1 million, larger than ours and right next door), even if we’d had a working MD system in place, it would have been totally beside the point. Then again, if they wanted to threaten a neighbor with non-nuclear missiles, they could completely overwhelm a 10 interceptor system relatively cheaply, even if the system worked.
Frankly, given our other commitments I don’t think we’ve got the influence and military to spare to prevent Russia from having a sphere of influence outside its own borders. That being the case, I think it’s a huge mistake to try to attempt it in a half-assed way. Stirring up trouble with Russia we can’t put down would be far more fatal to our interests there than anything else I can think of.