Posts
U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR U.S AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT
By
Joseph Chez
September 17, 2009
Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran.
However, to the discredit of the Bush Administration, it must be pointed out that one of his greatest misdeeds was his attempt to make a case that Iran’s nuclear pursuit would ultimately lead to a major threat to Europe and to the United States of America. Thus, his administration argued, that the imminent threat of a missile attack from Iran warranted placing a missile defense umbrella for the defense of Europe. His concern and reaction was reminiscent of the case made before the United Nations during the “smoking gun” of Iraq. Nonetheless, he initiated the plan and rallied support from European allies for this endeavor. To no one’s surprise, most NATO members were skeptical of the perceived threat from Iran and this proposal even placed NATO at odds with one of its own members – the US. Further, notwithstanding the economic and diplomatic ties Europe and Russia had mended since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Bush Administration was hell-bent with his missile defense plan for Europe. It should also be noted that the Bush Administration was chuck-full of neo-cons who believed that after the US had defeated the Soviet Union, the United States of America stood alone as the leader of the free world - unchallenged. However, for Putin’s Russia, Bush’s attempt to minimize Russia did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Thus, the proposed missile shield for Europe instead became a major thorn in Russian, NATO, and US diplomatic relations. Needless to day, the specter of another cold war thus became too real once again.
Certainly, the Russians were not surprised or amused, but were instead determined to confront any attempt by the United States to place nuclear ballistic missiles butt-up to their fence with the West. True, Russia had lost a mighty empire and for military purposes, Russia was seen militarily impotent. Notwithstanding, Russia responded by threatening to change the directional coordinates of its missiles to be directed towards Europe itself. Russia was certainly a wounded bear, but the Kremlin remained unyielding in its defense; armed and dangerous. Still, the Bush Administration pushed for the missile defense system despite the protracted recriminations. Much to the displeasure of the Bush Administration, Germany openly broke ranks and adopted a “Moscow first” policy approach. Thus, a profound difference in foreign policy threatened the formidable NATO alliance and the Siberian chill was once again felt - akin to another cold war era. In fact, aging “bear” airplane bombers began flights hugging US costal waters. Moreover, arms reductions talks (START) between the US and Russia were placed in jeopardy.
Undeterred, the Bush Administration continued with its plans and coaxed poor Eastern European countries to house the proposed missile defense batteries. Some of the poorest eastern nations salivated at the prospect of infusion of American dollars into their economies, but a deal was struck with Poland and the Czech Republic – whose location incidentally bordered Russia.
Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration’s assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?
First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions. So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions? Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat. Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise. Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities. In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran’s capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.
However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe. It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world – and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President’s office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan.
But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, “Breaking the War Mentality” decrying the “military industrial interest.” In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals. Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy. Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran’s potential terror against our nation. Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: “He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Today, Nixon’s spirit lives in the Republican mantra.
Bewail ye neo-cons.
By
Joseph Chez
September 17, 2009
Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran.
However, to the discredit of the Bush Administration, it must be pointed out that one of his greatest misdeeds was his attempt to make a case that Iran’s nuclear pursuit would ultimately lead to a major threat to Europe and to the United States of America. Thus, his administration argued, that the imminent threat of a missile attack from Iran warranted placing a missile defense umbrella for the defense of Europe. His concern and reaction was reminiscent of the case made before the United Nations during the “smoking gun” of Iraq. Nonetheless, he initiated the plan and rallied support from European allies for this endeavor. To no one’s surprise, most NATO members were skeptical of the perceived threat from Iran and this proposal even placed NATO at odds with one of its own members – the US. Further, notwithstanding the economic and diplomatic ties Europe and Russia had mended since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Bush Administration was hell-bent with his missile defense plan for Europe. It should also be noted that the Bush Administration was chuck-full of neo-cons who believed that after the US had defeated the Soviet Union, the United States of America stood alone as the leader of the free world - unchallenged. However, for Putin’s Russia, Bush’s attempt to minimize Russia did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Thus, the proposed missile shield for Europe instead became a major thorn in Russian, NATO, and US diplomatic relations. Needless to day, the specter of another cold war thus became too real once again.
Certainly, the Russians were not surprised or amused, but were instead determined to confront any attempt by the United States to place nuclear ballistic missiles butt-up to their fence with the West. True, Russia had lost a mighty empire and for military purposes, Russia was seen militarily impotent. Notwithstanding, Russia responded by threatening to change the directional coordinates of its missiles to be directed towards Europe itself. Russia was certainly a wounded bear, but the Kremlin remained unyielding in its defense; armed and dangerous. Still, the Bush Administration pushed for the missile defense system despite the protracted recriminations. Much to the displeasure of the Bush Administration, Germany openly broke ranks and adopted a “Moscow first” policy approach. Thus, a profound difference in foreign policy threatened the formidable NATO alliance and the Siberian chill was once again felt - akin to another cold war era. In fact, aging “bear” airplane bombers began flights hugging US costal waters. Moreover, arms reductions talks (START) between the US and Russia were placed in jeopardy.
Undeterred, the Bush Administration continued with its plans and coaxed poor Eastern European countries to house the proposed missile defense batteries. Some of the poorest eastern nations salivated at the prospect of infusion of American dollars into their economies, but a deal was struck with Poland and the Czech Republic – whose location incidentally bordered Russia.
Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration’s assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?
First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions. So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions? Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat. Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise. Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities. In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran’s capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.
However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe. It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world – and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President’s office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan.
But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, “Breaking the War Mentality” decrying the “military industrial interest.” In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals. Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy. Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran’s potential terror against our nation. Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: “He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Today, Nixon’s spirit lives in the Republican mantra.
Bewail ye neo-cons.
No comments:
Post a Comment