By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/18/10

We are now more vulnerable as a nation due to an inscrutable Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) last week from the administration. President Obama’s NPR pledged that the U.S. “will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” “will not develop new nuclear warheads,” and “will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”

By so doing, it also eliminates the protection to the country afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls “calculated ambiguity.” Attempting to explain the move, Gates said, “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”

To put the new NPR in perspective in simple terms, it’s like George Washington admitting that he would not use cannons against any foe who claimed they didn’t have cannons, (whether they really had them or not, as long as they said they didn’t have any), in retaliation for an attack on colonial America.

Proclaiming to the world, our enemies and our allies, when we will and won’t use our nuclear arsenal, is a seriously flawed policy that places the country more at risk. Secretary Gates alluded to that, even as he attempted to explain away the NPR as cited above.

Of course all this plays very well with the “blame America first” crowd. Those who, apparently like Obama, think America is to blame for if not all, at least most, of the problems of the world. Those who think if we dismantled our arsenal, every other country would follow our “moral” lead, are delusional. Rogue nations like North Korea (which already has them, confirmed through seismological and spectral analysis) and Iran (which is on the verge of having them) would be undeterred and unfettered in their misuse.

Which brings us to the Presidents’ summit at the White House this week where he said, “The prospect of nuclear terrorism is the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term.” If he truly felt that way, he wouldn’t be telegraphing to the world, especially our avowed enemies, our nuclear deterrence strategy, reducing our deterrence stockpiles, refusing to fund development of advanced deterrence technology, eliminating funding for a missile defense shield, and allowing the terrorist states of North Korea and Iran to continue unabated in developing their nuclear programs.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was obviously not impressed and mocked the new policy. He declared, “American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys. Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended.” It appears he was not motivated to abandon his nuclear ambitions by Obama’s idealism. The miscreants of the world never are.

According to the Center for Defense Studies, “The message being sent to the rest of the world is that the United States finds nuclear deterrence distasteful and wants to get out of the nuclear weapons business….The result may be a more volatile and dangerous world.”

Columnist and former Carter administration official Charles Krauthammer explains, “Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place…A nuclear posture is just that - a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence.”

Referring to the new Obama policy, Krauthammer continues “This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?”

You don’t have to be a foreign or military policy expert to see the flaws in this nuclear posturing. Common sense would lead anyone to realize that America is weakened when we promulgate our weapons usage policy, and inflict self-imposed limitations with our deterrent system. We are now more at risk now than we were a week ago, to the very thing Obama said constitutes our greatest threat.

Everyone waited with bated breath to observe the grilling on tap for General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker by members of the Senate this past week. All three Presidential candidates were in attendance at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where Petraeus, the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq testified.

While the questioning and comments by Senators McCain and Clinton reflected their respective views, as frequently articulated and micro-analyzed as they are, the comments by Senator Obama warrant additional scrutiny. His comments belie an ignorance and a moral ambivalence that should be alarming to any who have followed the developments in the Fertile Crescent.

Senator Obama began his remarks, “We all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq. We all do. And that has to be clearly stated in the record.”

That may seem innocuous enough, except when added to the context of everything else he said. Success has been carefully defined by the administration to include creation of a stable, self-sufficient government that can eventually handle its own security. Such a precondition to withdrawal would prevent Iraq from declining into a Taliban-like Afghanistan, which was a veritable cesspool of anti-American, and anti-freedom destruction-prone belligerents and malcontents, dedicated to the eradication of anything newer than the 8^th century, or anyone not a devout Muslim.

Senator Obama had to state his desire for success in Iraq, even though everything he says indicates he has no desire to see such success. But he had to have it “on the record” nonetheless, qualifying all his subversive comments that were to follow.

He then stated, “I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder (and) that the two problems that you've pointed out — al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region — are a direct result of that original decision.”

Al Qaeda chose to make Iraq a test of their battle-worthiness against the U.S. They lost. That’s why they have been fleeing Anbar and Baghdad. If anybody had a sense in 2003 that some of the Wahabbists and former Saddamites would join us to turn on Al Qaeda and rout them, nobody would have believed them. And then to learn this past two weeks that an Iraqi Shia government has turned on Muqtada al-Sadrand those who were being backed by Iran completely contradicts Obama’s statement.

Then the revelatory line by the Senator. “I also think that the surge has reduced violence, and provided breathing room. But that breathing room has not been taken the way we would all like it to be taken. I think that what’s happened in Basra is an example of Shia vs. Shia jockeying for power that underscores how complicated the political situation is there and how we still have to continue to work vigorously to resolve it. I believe that we are more likely to resolve it, if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way. I think, and this is where we disagree, that applying increased pressure in a measured way includes a timetable for withdrawal.”

This is an ignorant, or at least poorly conceived moral equivalent statement. It’s not Shia vs. Shia. He’s reduced an elected government into just another Iranian backed Shia clique. It’s not. Rather Iraq has a constitutionally elected government that’s taking on an illegitimate Shia group militia, and successfully at that. He employs a moral equivalency argument that anytime there’s violence, all parties are equally culpable. Iraq has a constitutionally elected government that is losing two to three times more security personnel than the U.S. is. They’re making the political progress necessary having met 12 of 18 benchmarks, and all Obama et al can do is criticize and attempt to delegitimize them. They’re fighting terrorists everyday on their own oil, and they’re the only ones doing so, except the Israelis, under the auspices of a legitimate constitutional government. They’re the only ones who seem willing to take on the Shia led and Iranian backed terrorists, and they get no credit for their success, only criticism from the Senator.

That same erroneous moral equivalency argument is frequently used to question why a rogue, terrorist state like Iran that’s intent on destroying its neighbors shouldn’t be allowed a nuclear weapons since the U.S., has them. It reveals a moral ineptness and vacuity.