Two years ago, we heard the promises of “Hope” and “Change.” The Obama campaign promised to undo the damage left by the Bush administration and make America more popular in the world. Almost half-way into his administration, I am not sure we are any closer to accomplishing any of those goals.
Several days ago, President Obama and Russian President (puppet to Vladimir Putin) Dmitry Medvedev signed the second START treaty–or START 2.0. The terms of the treaty “force” both sides to reduce their nuclear warhead arsenals from 2,200 to 1550–nearly one-third of what is currently allowed under START 1.0. As Charles Krauthammer points out, however, the Russians will certainly not hesitate to pull out of the treaty if there is one hint of missile defense movement in eastern Europe. The Bush administration had previously planned on establishing a missile defense system in eastern Europe–specifically in Poland–to defend the U.S. and its allies from short-or-long-range missiles.
Although it was Russia that invaded Georgia two years ago–an ally of the United States–Russian leaders view the U.S. as the aggressor in the region. To realists, like myself, it is clear that Russia still has not abandoned hope on re-gaining control over its “protectorate”–better known as the Soviet Union. Russian leaders are willing to do just about anything to remain relevant–including invading nearby countries. Yet, the current administration is naive enough to believe that Russia wants to do what is in the best interest of others? A country as unstable as Russia cannot be trusted–especially when Russian leaders are unwilling to punish Iran for defying U.N. sanctions.
Are we sure naive idealism is better than western diplomacy?
It is not hard to figure out that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (former Russian president) is actually calling the shots. Putin could not be trusted when he was in office, and has shown no reason why he should be trusted now. The facts are clear: this treaty hurts the U.S. more than Russia. The Russians do not have up-to-date nuclear technology–when they “dismantle” their weapons, it will not cause them to make significant programmatic changes. The U.S. takes the major risk in this treaty–we have modern nuclear technology that we have to discard for the unlikely possibility Russia will hold up its end of the deal.
I am a realist. I understand that no manner of human reasoning can overcome man’s sinful nature. The Russian leaders will do what they believe to be in the best interests of their country. These interests include supporting rogue regimes like Iran, North Korea and Sudan–purposed to spite the U.S. while reaping financial benefits. It’s embarrassing how idealistic this administration appears to be.
It would be nice if we could live in a world without nuclear weapons. But evil still exists–it is everywhere around the world. And so are nuclear weapons. Money is the “root of all evil,” so when you have countries like Russia who are willing to do whatever is necessary to reap economic benefits, it is unwise to believe we are safer by dismantling. Not to mention, Islamic extremists who would love to get their hands on nuclear weapons–old and new–are still actively pursuing new ways to harm Americans.
The Preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This move to sign a treaty with a country that has its own “not-so-secret” agenda is a step in the wrong direction. If our leaders truly believed we are an exceptional nation, we would defend our right to defend ourselves above all else.
The Constitution, Inc. 