November 29, 2010
By James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
At war's end, Beetle yearned for recognition, promotion and a little rest. Instead, Truman ordered him to Russia as U.S. ambassador. Upon hearing of the appointment, one of Ike's friends declared, "Serves those bastards [the Soviets] right."
The president picked Smith because he wanted a tough U.S. negotiator in Moscow. And Beetle made it crystal clear to the Kremlin that Washington was no patsy. "We are fully conscious of our own strength," the general informed the Soviet foreign minister. "It would be misinterpreting the character of the United States to assume that because we are basically peaceful ... [we are] weak, unwilling to face our responsibilities."
That was then. That is not now.
As President Obama entered arms control talks with Russia, he had anything but a record as a tough negotiator. His Nobel Prize, awarded even before he redecorated the Oval Office, created the expectation that accommodation was the name of the game. He'd be willing to give up a lot to "earn" it after the fact.
His record on international deal making was dismal. His dash to Copenhagen, Denmark, to land the Olympics for Chicago yielded nothing. His return visit there to work out a global warming agreement came to nothing as well. Then, trying to curry favour with Moscow, he threw Czech and Polish missile defenses under the bus. In return he got ... nothing.
With a track record like that, the administration's poor job negotiating the New START nuclear agreement comes as no surprise. But it gives the Senate a good reason to reject the treaty: Lawmakers should not reward the president for negotiating a lousy deal, nor should they feed Vladimir Putin's growing conviction that America is now a pushover.
The treaty gives Moscow everything it wants. While Moscow's arsenal of strategic weapons will shrink in number, the Russians remain free to upgrade and replace those arms with more advanced and capable systems. Their tactical nuclear warheads, used to intimidate their neighbors, remain unencumbered -- even though their 10,000 tactical nukes give them a 10-to-1 advantage over NATO. The icing on the cake for Moscow? The treaty hamstrings U.S. efforts to build a comprehensive missile defense.
In the end Moscow got it all: parity with the U.S. arsenal and the guarantee that Moscow's neighbors would have to live nervously and permanently in Russia's nuclear shadow. New START assures that nukes will remain the cornerstone of Russia's military and foreign relations strategy.
Meanwhile, Obama got nothing but liabilities.
The treaty is a deliberate act of American self-weakening. We cut more weapons than the Russians. In fact, the Russians are authorized to build more launchers. And, since Obama has declared he won't replace our aging nuclear arsenal (while the Russians have said they are going to build new weapons), our arsenal's qualitative advantage evaporates.
And even the treaty's most ardent defenders admit its verification procedures are less rigorous than what would have been achieved merely by extending procedures in the Moscow Treaty and the original START. The new deal forces us to trust more, and verify less.
Worse, it cripples our bid to field an effective missile defense. Paragraph nine of the preamble gives Russia a veto over future programs. The Obama administration denies that language is binding; the Kremlin says it is. This is an agreement?
Article V prohibits converting offensive systems into defensive systems. (No debate there, but a future president might want this option.) Other provisions inhibit missile defense testing.
The treaty also establishes a "Bilateral Consultative Commission." Its broad mandate could allow it to impose additional restrictions on our missile defense programs. Finally, the treaty requires the U.S. to share missile test data with Moscow. That information could facilitate Russian research into how to defeat our missile defenses.
We give up a lot in this treaty. What do we get in return? Help on Afghanistan? Iran? North Korea?
No, all we get is to say we're buddies with a country that routinely crushes freedom within its borders and bamboozles this administration in its negotiations.
Jay Carafano is a senior research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in The Examiner
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 450,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute,
with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in
February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free
enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national
defense. Read More
© 2014, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973