DEFENSE ANYONE?

Posted at 9:35 a.m. ET:

Defense gadfly and Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney is disturbed by what he sees as a weak defense policy by the Obama administration, and he worries about its implications:

President Barack Obama proposes a set of changes with respect to American security policies and programs that will....transform the "world's only superpower" into a nuclear impotent, with possibly catastrophic consequences.

Nothing like waking us up in the morning.

Such a transformation would be the more extraordinary for it coming against the backdrop of others' buildups of their nuclear arsenals. Every other declared nuclear weapon state is modernizing its stockpile and the most dangerous wannabees - North Korea and Iran - are building up their offensive missile capabilities and acquiring as quickly as possible the arms to go atop them.

Our deterrent is at risk:

We have allowed a steady decline in investment in the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that promised to assure the safety, effectiveness and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of below-ground tests.

And...

Not surprisingly, the nuclear laboratory directors' certifications about the status of our weapons are increasingly qualified by warnings of uncertainties about how long the present situation can be sustained.

Now we begin to see the catastrophic consequences.  The quality of our deterrent is what has kept the peace.

Today, we have fewer than the 2,200 fielded nuclear arms we are permitted to have under the U.S.-Russian Treaty of Moscow signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in 2002.

Now, President Obama wants to cut that number down to roughly 500 deployed weapons. His Office of Management and Budget contemplates no modernization of these forces and no upgrading of the capability to produce or refurbish them.

It takes an expert like Gaffney to point this out.  There is no concern in the mainstream media.

In addition, the Obama administration apparently believes that the remaining strategic weapons - presumably on submarines - would have to be taken off what it wrongly claims is "hair-trigger" alert status.

And...

The cumulative effect of these actions would be to render the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to quote President Reagan, "impotent and obsolete." That was, of course, not something he ever contemplated having the United States do unilaterally. In fact, even though our 40th president is increasingly invoked by the anti-nuclear crowd (whose latest campaign is called "Global Zero" and seeks the hopelessly unrealistic goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons) because of his avowed antipathy towards such arms, arguably no one did more than he to build up America's deterrent.

Obama's goals may produce the reverse effect:

The tragic irony is that the Obama administration's goal of global denuclearization is likely to be made more remote, not less, as America's deterrent becomes ever less certain. Our adversaries stand to benefit geostrategically from building up their nuclear arsenals as ours vanishes. Long-time allies will surely feel constrained to acquire their own nuclear forces if our "umbrella" ceases to assure them protection. In short, more proliferation, not less, is in prospect.

Finally...

In these ways, Barack Obama risks standing the time-tested Reagan philosophy of "peace through strength" on its head in favor of a posture shown to be a formula for war - sometimes on a global, cataclysmic scale: the failed pursuit of peace through U.S. weakness.

Actually, that philosophy - peace through strength - goes back much further than Reagan, to Harry Truman.  At one time it was called "power for peace." 

The Obama defense program that Gaffney describes is consistent with Obama's past.  It can produce disaster, if not immediately for us, than for many of our allies.  It can also tempt friendly nations to become less friendly, and to make deals with our enemies, for their own survival.

Obviously, there is still time for correction.  But for those of us who were concerned that Barack Obama would be another Jimmy Carter, our worst fears may come true.

February 17,  2009.