Obama Lets Sphere of Influence Trump Sphere of Security

by Austin Bay
September 22, 2009

When it came to acting on behalf of peace in the 21st century, the Obama administration weighed "sphere of influence" against "sphere of security" and came down solidly on the side of the Russian czars.

I am referring to the administration's refusal to deploy long-range defensive ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles in Poland. For an administration that insistently congratulates itself on "smart diplomacy," this is a shortsighted decision that sets back 21st century collective defense (sphere of security) at least five critical years and likely longer.

Moreover, President Barack Obama's personal announcement of the policy decision was disastrously timed, an utter tin ear to grand history. Just three weeks ago, on Sept. 1, Poland's president Lech Kaczynski demanded an apology from Russia for the "stab in the back" that occurred Sept. 17, 1939, when Russian tanks invaded eastern Poland and began linking up with Nazi panzers attacking from the west.

On Sept. 17, 2009, free Poland (liberated 20 years ago from the dungeon of Kremlin tyranny) took another knife, as the Obama administration dumped the GBI deployment in favor of pursuing its befogged "reset" of relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia. Little wonder Poles have dissed the decision. The White House decision also damaged relations with the Czech Republic, which had agreed to host an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) radar as part of the defensive system. Recall in 1938 in Munich, the West sold out Czechoslovakia in an attempt to "reset" diplomacy with Adolf Hitler.

If you think the Poles and Czechs are overreacting, then you might brush up on World War II's effects on their nations and their extended prison term in the Kremlin's "sphere of influence" that followed it known as the Cold War.

Smart diplomacy? History will judge the level of intellect involved in this decision, as well as the level of strategic awareness and diplomatic deftness. But the odds are the descriptive phrase will not contain an adjective associated with brilliance or courage. A "YouTube Era" Neville Chamberlain seems more apt.

President Obama, however, ritually included the word "smarter" in his Sept. 17, 2009, statement. "To put it simply," he said, "our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies."

Obama began with a narrow truth: Deploying short- and mid-range ABM systems to defend friendly nations against Iranian ballistic missile attack is good idea. In the Sept. 11, 2009, Wall Street Journal, Iraqi commentator Omar Fadhil al-Nidawi and I suggested Iraq acquire Patriot PAC-3 short-range ABMs to provide a basic defense against Iranian missiles.

Iraqis know the threat. During their long conflict in the 1980s, Iraq and Iran fought a "War of the Cities" with theater ballistic missiles. Saddam fired SCUDs at Israel and Saudi Arabia. America could deploy a belt of Patriot batteries and Navy Standard-3 ABMs along the Persian Gulf littoral and in Turkey.

Obama says he will deploy Patriot PAC-3s and Navy Standard-3s in Europe.

Fine. But to call substituting short- and mid-range ABMs for the GBIs "smarter" and more comprehensive is balderdash, and balderdash that ultimately increases risks to Europe and the U.S., while undermining once-strong political relationships with nascent democracies (like Poland) in Eastern Europe.

Europe needs all of these systems, in concert, for a layered, full-spectrum defense of short-, mid- and long-range ABMs that is harder for a volley of rogue-nation ballistic missiles to penetrate.

Full-spectrum missile defense is part of a "unified diplomatic program" to create a sphere of security, first for the U.S. and NATO allies. But over time its shield can expand to protect other nations favoring peaceful relations, mutual cooperation and trade. Obama has hobbled that grand initiative in favor of dubious promises from the Kremlin.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

sandor poland appology request 9/22/2009 11:12:38 PM

hello austin. i am big fan of your work and that of jim d over the years. just problem with the poland story. the matter is not simple because we can't really answer what would be better for the poles, living under nazi occupation or stalin's? most of us would guess stalin's frightful but better. would you not guess this? also remember beck's was a dictator, maybe benevolant among tyrants but hardly democratic. and poland declined a non-agression and mutual assistance pact with stalin didn't he? yes, if beck's government had let the soviet's in to protect them, we can guess that it would have been awful for the poles, with repression and arbetrary killings, gulag, etc. as occured in all of the red empire, as occured after the war lat, lit, & estonia for example. but there would have been less overall pol;ish and maybe worldwide deaths if that invitation [stalin's offer to occupy the boarder with germany] was accepted [yes, it would have been an invitation to a form of destruction but less than the poles got in the end]. do you think that acceptance would have prevented 21 june 41? no, i dont think so. but who knows. it would be worth a try [in the silly retrospective-history world]... so the buffer of occupied poland can be viewed in a way, like the french and british invasion of belgium in may that same year. yes, yes, french and brit occupation- if it had suceeded would have been extremely inoffensive [like brit and later USA invasion and occupation of iceland], and yes, we can't compare stalin's occupation with the brit, french, and usa's occupation which left [or would have left if they had won in belgium] "homerule" largely intact. but the principle is similar. it is not entirely unreasonable to occupy poland in the face of nazi menace. there is no defence of stalin's regime or his behavour in ruling ussr or poland. russia [and the ukranians because there were plenty of them there who participated] can & should appologist for katryn [probably misspellerd. sorry] and waiting at gates of warsaw in '45 and a bizillion other assorted frightful crimes. but there is a shred of sense in invading poland in june, july, or august of 1941. no? kind regards, sandor.

Quote Reply

ker 9/23/2009 11:20:20 AM

"...but there is a shred of sense in invading poland in june, july, or august of 1941. no? kind regards, sandor."

Here is a alternative history. Stalin informs Poland's government of Hitlers intentions. Stalin had the information because he was a co-conspirator.

Maybe Stalin tells Hitler to go take a leap instead of signing a pact w/ him. Might have been a "shred of sense" in that.

Maybe Stalin finds ways to support Poland's defense that a Polish government could stand for like sending weapons for the Polish rather than troops. What was the reputation of Russian troops for civil interaction with unarmed populations at that time?

Here is another thought. Stalin thought Russia could be a nice place if it weren't for all the Russians. Stalin though Hitler was a nice tool to dispose of less desirable Russians. His defense of Russia had a rather slow start.

Quote Reply

bropous 9/23/2009 1:16:21 PM

sandor:

Hitler was horrendous. He caused a good 10-12 million deaths at minimum.

The Communists in the Soviet Union, however, slaughtered a good 60 million, the Communist Chinese, a good 120 million.

The Nazis were hideous. The Communists? Nazis on STEROIDS.

Tha Nazis get the worse press, but they were far outstripped by THE most brutal political ideology of the 20th Century, Communism.

And the Commies are STILL murdering today.

Quote Reply

BB45 Willing to Wait 9/23/2009 2:59:16 PM

I think most of the U.S. is willing to try Obama's Overtures mainly because that music has got to sound better than Bush's Band. We just completed 8 years of Stuff-It-In-Your-Face diplomacy, so we are willing to try [almost] anything that Obama proposes. And I know that so far, not too many results. I read some article recently that pointed out how thin actual results have been from Obama's style. We centrists are aware of this. Sometimes I think that half the worrying from the right, however, is because they think that all of us who are centered are as oblivious to reality as left wingnuts, i.e., that we do not notice when soft diplomacy fails. But Bush and Cheney's histrionics have pushed us to where we want to give milder diplomacy a chance.

But as I say, we are watching. I heard on the news today that at the U.N. Obama said something to the effect of "We are waiting to see if you who have been scolding us for going it alone are now willing to act with us as we invite you into the discussion." So I think he's aware that he is sticking his neck out, too, by trying an approach different from Bush's. I think he's a realist, not a peacenik. As I hope are most of us who are not on either wing of politics.

Regarding Obama's proposal of using short/mid range ABMs versus GBI, I hope this is just to get Russia on board with supporting really strong Iran sanctions. The fact is that if we lose a few years of GBI deployment to gain more Iran sanctions, this may be a good idea. Because we can always reverse course and put in GBI. And it might take the next couple of years to iron out GBI tech glitches anyway -- standard 3's are really proven.

So at the moment I am not panicking about Obama's reversal of GBI, willing to watch and see if this new policy works better than the old one.

Quote Reply

To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2009CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.