Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008
From: "Jeremy Ventuso" <jventuso@gmail.com
Subject: Comments on Washington Post editorial (article # 8 in JRL 221, 2008)
This Washington Post editorial misses the point, namely, that anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as well as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia are policies which are not in the interests of the U.S. This is an issue which deserves its own detailed discussion (which I will not attempt here for lack of time), but the problem is that the author of the editorial seems to think that the mere act of backing down from the Bush administration's position on these issues is a sign of weakness, and hence detrimental to American interests. That is the kind of logic that had us fighting for non-vital goals in the Cold War and paying a price far in excess of any benefit (e.g. Vietnam). Besides, it's obvious that Bush's policies have been bad across the board; steering away from the past eight years is the platform on which Obama was elected! Moving away from these non-beneficial, untenable foreign policy positions will also deprive the Russians of their (legitimate) complaints against meddling and insensitive U.S. action.
A workable alternative would be to press to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the European Union, which Moscow does not seem to have a problem with. Concurrently, if Europe gets its act together and manages to pass some form of the Lisbon Treaty, that will provide the security guarantee member states seek through NATO in a way that is less objectionable to Russia (the Lisbon Treaty has a mutual defense clause along the lines of NATO's Article 5 that the current EU arrangement lacks). This could be a sort of "back door" for Ukraine and Georgia that is not historically fraught vis-à-vis Moscow as NATO accession is.
Regarding missile defense, it is a silly, unproven pet project that costs far more than it is worth. It does not protect against the most pressing nuclear threat from Iran or other "rogue" states (i.e. a nuclear weapon smuggled into and detonated in the U.S. or any other country). At best, missile defense can protect against a few ballistic missiles, which any state would be deterred from launching in the first place because of the certainty of massive U.S. retaliation (terrorists with no "return address" are the only ones who cannot be conventionally deterred, and there is virtually no threat of them ever launching a ballistic nuclear weapon).
President Obama might very well choose to do away with plans for U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic; it would be money well saved. What he will do regarding U.S. support for Ukraine and Georgia's NATO accession is less clear. In any case, changing course from the Bush administration's foolhardy policy in the region would be a welcome change and a sign of strength to do what is in the nation's true interests rather than a sign of weakness.