Obama's words are in quotes:
"I'm the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as
president I will end it." No one likes war: especially those who have to
do
the fighting and dying. Yet, our military leaders make clear that the
consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq as Obama seeks would be
disastrous not only for American interests in the region but for Iraq
itself. It would provide a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and Iran
because
they will be able to claim they defeated America. Further, it could worsen
the Iraqi civil war, create an unstable Mideast and further spike oil
prices.
"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending."
Anyone who has worked with the military for any length of time knows there
is waste, often in weapons systems. Recently, the Government
Accountability
Office found that 95 major weapons systems -- including the Joint Strike
Fighter and the Littoral Combat ****p -- have exceeded their original
budgets. These cost overruns could be the result of waste or mismanagement
or, perhaps, the development and fielding of sophisticated new weapons
with
constantly changing requirements is difficult and inefficient.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." Recently,
both
our sea-based and ground-based missile systems proved to be successful. On
Feb 20, the USS Lake Erie armed with an SM-3 missile destroyed a wayward
satellite traveling at more than 17,000 MPH more than 100 miles high. In
September, 2007, our ground-based midcourse defense system killed a dummy
missile over the Pacific using an interceptor stationed in Alaska. The US
Bureau of Arms Control warns, "The ballistic missile danger to the US, its
forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing."
"I will not weaponize space." America's current policy is not to weaponize
space. However, it's im****tant for policy makers to recognize the US's
dependence on space. Our banking, communications and navigation systems
almost entirely depend on satellites. Space lines of communication are as
essential for commerce today as sea lines of communication were two
centuries ago. Does Obama mean he wouldn't provide defensive systems for
our
satellites? Apparently so.
Surrendering space to rogue nations and pirates places our economy and
military at risk. Anti-satellite weaponry will proliferate and must be
countered.
"I will slow our development of future combat systems." Our combat systems
are becoming ancient. Our air force is flying aircraft which are based on
1940s and 1950s technology and our army is driving 1960s and 1970s vintage
vehicles. Older equipment is expensive, time consuming to maintain and
potentially dangerous.
The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the first full-spectrum
modernization effort in nearly 40 years. It will replace Cold War-era
relics
with "full-spectrum" operations capable modular systems designed to
operate
in complex terrain. It can also be adapted to civil sup****t, such as
disaster relief.
Failing to develop future combat systems puts American warriors at risk
and
unnecessarily jeopardizes our security.
". and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure
that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary
spending." Congress created the QDR as an every four-year analysis
intended
to balance defense strategy and programs with resources.
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, an "independent defense
priorities board" in its own right, published its analysis of the most
recent QDR. It lauded the Bush administration for sustained involvement of
senior officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and
creating a database to track implementation of initiatives. The GAO
faulted
Congress for failing to clarify its expectations regarding what budget
information the Pentagon should provide.
To make matters worse, Congress' 2008 Defense Authorization Act created
two
new and redundant every four year analyses. One is an independent military
assessment of roles and missions and the other identifies core mission
areas, competenceis and capabilities.
Obama is right to criticize the QDR because it has become an exercise in
fantasy but his Congressional colleagues keep piling on new requirements.
The senator can help the Pentagon by scaling back on the analyses
requirements. Just tell the military what the country can afford and then
have the services explain what they will buy and how much risk we will
have
to accept.
"To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons." That's
dangerous. Our present nuclear arsenal will atrophy if it isn't
modernized.
According to the head of the military's Strategic Command, Air Force Gen.
Kevin Chilton, our warheads are aging and weren't designed to last
forever,
making him nervous. "I liken it to approaching a cliff -- and I don't know
how far away from that cliff I am," Chilton said.
Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the US's National Nuclear
Security Administration, said we have a new program that will potentially
reduce the number of warheads and make them safer. It's called the
Reliable
Replacement Warhead program and "contemplates designing new components for
previously tested nuclear packages." The RRW would create, Brooks said, a
"reduced chance we will ever need to resort to nuclear testing" again.
"I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material." Nations
capable of producing nuclear weapons produce fissile material for their
atomic arsenals. Many of these same nations produce fissile material to
fuel
their nuclear power plants which light millions of homes and are a cheap,
clean energy source in a world concerned about hydrocarbon pollution.
Efforts to control the production of fissile material date back to the
1946
Baruch Plan but that attempt was abandoned during the Cold War. In 1992,
President George H.W. Bush announced that the US no longer produced
fissile
material for nuclear weapons and in 1993 President Bill Clinton called for
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations. While this is a worthy goal
it
is not achievable in an energy hungry world.
". and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger
alert..."
The US nuclear forces are not on "hair trigger" alert. Only a ****tion of
America's deployed nuclear forces maintain a ready alert status.
Besides, our policy does not rely on a "launch on warning" strategy.
Rather,
our forces are postured to provide flexibility by raising the readiness
status of the force and by putting weapons systems on alert when
necessary.
". and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." Our nuclear arsenal
is
a deterrent against enemies with similar systems. Deep cuts without
verifiable reciprocal cuts would be dangerous. However, we are making
progress via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which proposes a
reduction
of the overall threathold of up to 1,500 warheads. Russia has
approximately
4,162 and the US has 5,866 strategic warheads and both nations possess
thousands of tactical weapons and reserve stocks as well.
Senator Obama's national security views expressed in his 52-second video
reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the
primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his
statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and
in some cases his facts are wrong.
|
