On American Military Provocations to China and Russia
Missiles from China’s Mighty Red Army
Is President Obama Trapped by myths masquerading as history?
Since we know that President Obama is a highly intelligent man who, for the most part, has pursued a foreign policy that is something different and something more than that of his predecessor, there seems to be only one rational explanation for some of the irrational decisions the Obama administration is making in dealing with China and Russia in military matters. They are locked in a master narrative that bears little resemblance to historical truth or present reality!
Although the administration’s foreign policy wonks must recognize the folly of these ideas, they dare not break free of this ideological prison for fear of political retribution from a woefully ignorant and increasingly paranoid electorate; an untutored mob who can easily be whipped into frenzy by right wing Republican demagogues and their point men – the verbose hysterics who dominate AM talk radio. A poignant example of the extent to which they are servants of historical fictions is the Obama administration’s decision to sell advanced military weaponry to the de-facto island nation of Taiwan – which the Chinese have contended for over half a century is a part of China. This is a clear insult to Chinese prestige and a threat to their national security.
To compound the insult and heighten the threat congress bans the sale of these same sophisticated weapons systems to China! Fifty years ago, when US policy on this issue was formulated, the US could get away with such offensives with impunity. But it could prove very costly in today’s world. China is no longer a technologically backward semi-fuedal nation in the process of modernization; it is a financial power that is the major US creditor, and a rapidly raising technological colossus whose universities are turning out ten times the number of engineers as US universities.
Furthermore, the Chinese have a massive well armed and trained military which would prove invincible in the face of any land invasion. This means that in the event of a conflict our military options would rapidly turn to nuclear weapons. General Douglass McArthur understood this a half century ago, and warned that America could not prevail in a land war against “the limitless legions of China.” Even then, when China’s military was a far inferior force, the general advocated dropping the A bomb on them. So the question thoughtful Americans should now be asking is: What would be the US response if China decided to attack and annex Tiawan?
President Bush’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-ballistic Missile treaty in 2002 – which forbade the deployment of missile defense systems except in one location on their home territory and prohibited developing advanced technology that would cover larger areas – was bad enough. But President Obama’s decision to build a defensive missile shield in nations that were once allied with Russia is an even more dangerous game. It justifies my skepticism about keeping Robert Gates as defense secretary; his hand is everywhere in this misguided decision. In a New York Times column of September 20, 2009 Gates confessed: “I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of new technologies to combat future threats.”
President Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen Tauscher, who is negotiating the agreements for deploying these defensive systems in eastern Europe, is also a longtime advocate of missile defense. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Sub-committee of the House Armed services committee, she avidly supported Bush’s plan to build an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe, even though she was a Democrat from California and most of her party opposed it. Hence Ms. Tauscher’s appointment to her present position begs the question of President Obama’s real intentions when he announced that he was scrapping Bush’s plans to build the shield. For, according to Under Secretary Tauscher, the Obama plan would provide for earlier deployment and cover a wider area than the system proposed by President Bush! It’s beginning to look like the old “bait and switch,” a diplomatic bunko game.
Predictably, the Russians have declared these developments – and NATO expansion in general – to be a threat to their national security. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, announced to the press: “Maybe it’s against Iran, but that same system can be targeted against any other country, including Russia’s strategic nuclear potential. The U.S. is using Iran’s actions to globalize its system of missile defense….Our military shouldn’t believe some promises or intentions. We need to go on the assumption that a foreign military potential is approaching our borders.” This has become the basic assumption of the “New Military Policy,” which calls NATO and US actions one of “the main external threats of war.” Yet this doctrine will guide Russian military planning for the next ten years. And the comment of Igor Korotchenko, a retired Colonel who edits the National Defense Magazine, should certainly give cause for a pause. “Russia must warn Romania that if the elements of the US missile shield are placed in the country they will become a target of Russia’s preventive missile strikes.”
The critical questions here are: Does the Obama administration believe the Russians are bluffing? And if not, are we prepared to go to war with Russia to defend Romania if they are attacked? What would happen to the Obama Presidency if the US were forced to back down? And most important of all: Is any of this in the national interests of the United states or are they just playing politics? The fate of the Obama Presidency is not the only thing hanging in the balance here…but the fate of the earth as well.
This Russian Nuclear Missile Can hit Washington in 30 minutes!
Harlem, New York
Feburary 24, 2010