The Sneak Triumph of New START
In the weeks since the election, Congress has passed a tax deal, repealed DADT, rejected the DREAM Act, confirmed a few judges, and rejected the omnibus spending bill. And tomorrow, the not-so-lame-duck Congress is expected to rack up one last legislative 'victory' with the passage of the New START Treaty, which as recently as last week seemed headed for the ash heap. John Podhoretz over at Contentions explains what went wrong.
It appears that yesterday, Republican opposition to the New START treaty in the Senate melted down; the treaty is on its way to passage tomorrow with, Rich Lowry says, as many as 75 votes. So what happened here?
...I think the problem the anti-START forces ran into is that the treaty itself is, arguably, anodyne. In other words, it’s unnecessary but not dangerous. And it appears the Obama administration made an effective case to wavering Republican senators that it would be dangerous to reject it. That argument may be specious, but it runs like this: We need Russian cooperation to keep Iran from going nuclear, there are signs we’re getting that cooperation, and it will end instantly if the treaty dies in the Senate. The administration might have dropped some important classified information into the ears of senators to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation. And there are enough intellectuals and policy thinkers on the right who agree that the risk of rejecting the treaty is worse than the risk of signing it that the wavering senators were given all sorts of good reasons for supporting it.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
I realize this is strategically naive, but I say anytime you can snatch a feather from Obama's cap, you snatch it.
Jul '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
Why isn't it obvious to our 'August' body of leaders that neither Russia, Iran, China or the Middle East in general, want anything 'for us' but are all using these kinds of 'treaties' to get from us? At least Reagan knew the players and the way they 'played' and was able to use our inherent strengths to our advantage which, by the way, is why we have those strengths, for the 'advantage'. That is the only reason these countries have to 'negotiate' in the first place, if they could stop the US any other way they'd just do it.
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
I'm not buying Obama's argument, if in fact that's the angle he's been selling. Russia needs to be pressured into pushing Iran back? And what indication is there that Iran will listen anyway? And, by the way, unless Russia is up to no good, why would they care so much about our nuclear arsenal? Have we demonstrated that we use our nuclear capabilities irresponsibly? Have we given Russia any reason to fear us, since the Soviet Union disintegrated? I just think this tendency toward disarmament at a time when nukes are proliferating is very dangerous. I certainly don't feel comfortable that so many of Republicans are on the same side of an issue with a president who doesn't have the same notion about America's role in the world as conservatives -- and I'm not talking about so-called neoconservatives.
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
I have to say, as far as START is concerned, the GOP is not at all well served by the notion that if Obama is for it then Republicans should be against it so as to err on the side of being serious and patriotic Americans. If conservatives continue to say that Republican Senators are "caving" on START, the treaty really will become a "victory for the President" -- when what it really should be is what John Podhoretz describes: an option freely chosen as part of a broad, crucial, and, yes, effective strategy of isolating Iran and keeping US-Russian relations constructive. Podhoretz describes an argument that I, along with Lamar Alexander, George Voinovich, and too many military officials to name, just don't think is specious. When it comes to the truth about how hard it would be for the US to secure our interests in the face of real Russian opposition, what seems to be in some quarters a case of plain willful ignorance is something the GOP should learn quickly to do fully without.
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
James: I am not saying that Republicans should reflexively oppose anything Obama is for; of course not. I'm saying that in assessing his credibility, for example, about whether SDI is linked to Russia's agreements to de-nuke, we should be skeptical when there is ambiguity and we can't get the Russians to agree to change the ambiguity, nor the administration for that matter, as I understand it. And I'm saying that since Obama has made clear he is uncomfortable with our military superpower status, one has to wonder whether he truly cares whether that coupling exists.
May '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
The START negotiations illustrate the problem of a high-trust society (USA) negotiating with extreme low-trust societies (Russia, China, Iran, NK, etc). We assume both sides want to make the world "a better place." The other side wants to make the USA a weaker country.
Nov '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
There are two things that I think are important for the US in its nuclear and missile considerations: the first is anti-missile defense; the second is the ability to convert any of our present missiles from nuclear to non-nuclear warheads.
My understanding is that the treaty, as it is construed by the Russians, places restrictions upon both.
If that is true, then our pursuing the creation of anti-missile defenses and the conversion of nuclear to non-nuclear warheads would give the Russians a basis for abrogating the treaty, thus depriving us of the supposed benefits of whatever verification procedures it contains.
I see NO benefit to the US from entering into such a deal and I think that the Russians are a most unreliable crutch upon which to rely in our dealings with the Persians.
Jun '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
To the extent the democrat Congress was "successful' in the lame-duck session it was the Republicans that allowed them to be. Nothing, I mean NOTHING, positive has come out of this session. START passing will simply be another defeat for the country, thanks to the feckless GOP.
The only way to collectively punish the Senate for this perfidy is to boycott the NRSC. Give to your individual conservative senate candidates but not one dime to a group that might assist Brown, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Corker, or Alexander. They abandoned their party, let the party (us) abandon them. When the NRSC money dries up let the RINOs explain why.
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
Amen, Tucson. BTW, here's a good column by Nile Gardiner laying out Obama's aimless, feckless foreign policy and how, as we've been saying, he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and, with this treaty, arguably empowers the Russians, to "have a say" in the development of our missile defense. From the column:
Nov '10
Re: The Sneak Triumph of New START
Here is what I think is an excellent article on the unwisdom of ratifying START from yesterday's Investors Business Daily:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557517/201012211907/Some-In-GOP-Cave-On-New-START.htm
The author makes the points for the opposition far better than I can.