The President Has Poor Posture

It’s all fine and good if President Obama wants to have a beer and wax philosophical with his friends about how the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons. The topic would even make for a nice speech at a Miss America pageant. The reality, however, is that nuclear weapons do exist. They’ve been invented—the Pandora’s Box is opened! We can’t uninvent them. They’re here, they’re nuclear, get used to it.

American nuclear policy should reflect reality. Unfortunately, last week President Obama reversed our country’s longstanding nuclear policy which had effectively secured peace for sixty-five years.

The previous policy, supported by every president since Harry Truman, was designed to give potential aggressors pause before attacking the United States or one of our allies. Mess with us, and anything may happen—you might even get nuked. A case study in the effectiveness of this policy is illustrated by former Secretary of State James Baker in his memoir, The Politics of Diplomacy. Baker wrote that in a meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz on the eve of the Gulf War he “purposely left the impression that the use of chemical or biological agents by Iraq could invite tactical nuclear retaliation.” No chemical weapons were confirmed to have been used during the war.

Under the new Obama policy, we’ve lost the “calculated ambiguity” that Secretary Baker credits with preventing the use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War. We’ve put all of our cards on the table. The policy states: “the United States 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 non-proliferation obligations.” So if anyone who’s treaty-compliant and not openly nuclear wants to gas any of our major cities, the official U.S. stance is “That’s okay.” We’ll still respond to be sure, but it’ll be a slower, more tepid, limited response of conventional bombs and bullets. Obama’s new policy sucks the “super” out of “superpower.”

Ohio Congressman Mike Turner, senior Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, has it exactly right:

When it comes to defending the United States against a devastating attack, our message should be clear and simple: If our nation is attacked, we will use all means necessary to defend ourselves. Period. This is the essence of nuclear deterrence: The message should be that the cost of attacking the United States will be greater than the benefit.

Obama’s slumped nuclear posture not only gambles with our safety in the present, it gambles with our nation’s safety in the future as well. Under the new policy, the United States “will not develop new warheads or add military capabilities.” So as China and Russia advance we’ll be staying back in the past. We’ll be fighting with the equivalent of spears and stones as the rest of the world advances. God forbid another war breaks out; we’ll have to change our national anthem to “Livin’ on a Prayer.”

Foreign relations are unpredictable. During World War II, the Russians were our allies. Shortly thereafter we were facing off against them in the Cold War. We don’t know what tomorrow will bring. There’s no crystal ball to gaze into to know what dangers we may face. We do know, however, that it’s best to be prepared. In his first annual message to Congress (the “State of the Union” by today’s terms), George Washington advised, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Peace through strength. The first forty-three presidents understood that.

Barack Obama promised us change. He’s definitely delivering.

Kilroy Wants it Both Ways in Afghanistan

On May 14, 2009 Congresswoman Kilroy co-sponsored HR 2404, a resolution in the House of Representatives which, if passed, will order the Obama Administration to develop and execute an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan, the country which hosted Osama bin Laden as he planned the September 11 attacks on our country. A few months later, in the run up to President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge, Ms. Kilroy stated in the Columbus Dispatch that “Afghanistan should be the central front against terrorism since those that [sic.] wish to do us harm have based their efforts in that part of the world.” The Columbus Dispatch reports today that Ms. Kilroy will vote against a resolution by her liberal ally and HR 2404 co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, OH-10) using an obscure and likely unconstitutional provision of the War Powers Act of 1973.

So to recap: Kilroy in May: PULL OUT! Kilroy in September: SURGE!

What does Congresswoman Kilroy have to say right now? Apparently nothing. In the Columbus Dispatch’s coverage of the House debate on Kucinich’s resolution most Central Ohio legislators were able to clearly state their positions. However, Ms. Kilroy conspicuously didn’t offer a quote to inform her constituents on her position.

Her silence is but the latest in an ages old political game the Congresswoman and her ilk like to play of trying to have it both ways. Ms. Kilroy is in bed with the anti-defense far-left: She’s sponsored a resolution directing Defense Secretary Gates to outline an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan. She’s also a fawning devotee to the Obama Administration, and, at present, President Obama wants to stay the course in Afghanistan.

Congresswoman Kilroy is torn. She has backed herself into the unenviable position of needing to appease both her ultra-liberal masters and her allies in the Obama Administration. The conflict has left her ineffective and sinking in a mire of indecision.

The inconsistency of her positions has left those of us in her district unable to fathom how Congresswoman Kilroy genuinely feels about protecting us from the terrorists who wish to do us harm. What the Congresswoman has made perfectly clear is that she lacks resolve and will bend to political pressure on any and every issue—even our nation’s safety and security.

Congresswoman Kilroy is sending the wrong message to the terrorists. Through her actions she is exhibiting that our commitment to winning the war on terror is as fickle as the political winds.

Thankfully, the man challenging Kilroy in the upcoming 2010 election, Lt. Colonel Steve Stivers, has a solid understanding of what the result of cutting and running from the war in Afghanistan would entail. Said Stivers, “As a solider, I’m the first to wish we could end the engagement in Afghanistan, but to do so would embolden our enemies with a victory and move the front line in the war on terror to the United States.”