Good guys and bad guys

In the late seventies, during the Carter administration, the US was involved in the infamous SALT treaties with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were smart, they would build up their arsenals, then go to the table and demand that neither side build any more of the weapon that they had just finished stockpiling. After they had finished building up their supply of long range bombers, they proposed that neither side would pursue any more long range bombers. Smart for them, stupid for us. The Carter administration swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Their goal was not to actually have meaningful negotiations, but to say that they had a treaty. They wanted to show that they were working with the Soviets. All the while the Soviets were laughing at the Americans who were hamstringing themselves into a second rate national defense.

Fast forward a bit to the 90s. The North Koreans, under a despotic regime tout their ambitions to become a nuclear power. In an effort to get some type of agreement the Clinton administration offers peaceful nuclear technology to the North Koreans, if they agree to not pursue nuclear weapons. Of course they agree. A nuclear reactor is established with the help of the US, then they Americans leave. The North Koreans turn around and announce the fact that they have been able to build a nuclear weapon with their new technology.

Brilliant diplomacy.

You can only negotiate with an enemy if you are in a position of strength. You have to know what it is that they have been and are capable of doing. You must be able to verify their compliance.

The problem is that both Carter and Clinton wanted to appear to be ‘the good guy’; the one who was willing to let down the guard of the great Unites States in order to achieve a peace agreement. The liberals of today seem to think that there really aren’t any ‘bad guys’ out there. We just haven’t taken the time to really understand their position and that if we were more willing to make concessions, they would see our side.

The fact is that WE are the good guys, and yes there are ‘bad guys’ in the world. No, they are not misunderstood, at least not by those who would open their eyes and see. They are people who are bent on holding and keeping their power, subjugating their people, and if they can fool you and gain the upper hand in any negotiations, they will. They are tyrants. They are murderers. They hate freedom. They love power. They cannot be trusted.

There is good and there is evil in the world. This is nothing new and it will not change.

If we are not fighting for the good, then we are abdicating to the evil.

As I watch the defense budget being slashed to make way for global warming initiatives and ineffective stimulus spending I’m concerned that the hard learned lessons of the past will have to be revisited. As I watch our president apologize for our role of strength and leadership in the world I’m concerned that our enemies are getting a green light to move forward in haste.

I want to grab our leaders and scream, “WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!!”

If they can’t grasp the basics of who is on the side of good and who is on the side of evil, then they will never be able to fight for the good, or resist the evil.

Foreign Policy without Strength

The economic meltdown that the US is feeling right now is going to be long and painful as the business world comes to realize that President Obama’s policies are distinctly anti-business, anti-growth, and decisively anti-private sector. This has a good part of the country reeling for the shock of 401Ks, IRAs, and 529s, not to mention the stock and options in their own companies plunging. But for a moment let’s put the global financial crisis on hold and look at something that hasn’t been getting as much attention, a dramatic shift in foreign policy.

Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama have all said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Unfortunately those who consider themselves our enemies were listening and agreeing. President Obama has backed off of the “missile shield” that was revived and pursued by the Bush administration. This is the evolution of what was once known as SDI or the Strategic Defense Initiative. It was a crippling technological blow in the arms race with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and one of the main reasons Gorbachev conceded in vast arms reduction agreements. At the time the US was only proving the theories behind the program, which President Reagan envisioned would be a series of satellites that would protect EVERY country on earth, even the Soviet Union. What was once spaced based, is now a terrestrial based network, with actual proven systems being installed in different places around the globe. The idea is similar to the proven Patriot systems that became a CNN favorite during the first gulf war. High on the list are eastern European NATO and former Soviet block countries that fear an increasingly aggressive Russia, combined with a nuclear armed North Korea, and a nuclear ambitious Iran.

Unfortunately the few budget cuts that President Obama has been eyeing are centered around defense spending. The missile defense shield in particular seems to be on the chopping block. For eastern European nations that watched Russia roll into Georgia during the summer, this can’t be very comforting. President Obama’s new tone and policy toward Russia appears to endanger their very safety and sovereignty. Nations that still have the memories of Soviet rule cringe at the prospects of a resurgent Russia under the ambitious Putin. President Obama showed little understanding of the area as a candidate and even less discernment of Putin’s intentions. The currently friendly gaffe’s at ‘resetting’ US/Russian relations and a retraction of commitments on the missile shield tell the world and Russia that the Obama administration will accept a position of weakness in any negotiations. Hardly the trump card that played so well for President Reagan.

On the Korean peninsula, President Obama’s team appears almost indifferent to North Korea’s intent to launch a “peaceful satellite” into orbit. The reality is that they appear to be running a test on a new long range rocket, in violation of a useless UN Security Council resolution.

Iran as well has been establishing a long range missile program with help from the Russians. This is also a concerning development when combined with the near completion of their first nuclear weapon.

Doesn’t a missile shield sound like a good idea about now?

Continuing their overtures of a desire to negotiate from a weakened US stance, President Obama mentioned that we need to appeal to the moderates in the Taliban to help bring about peace in Afghanistan. A local official who worked with the Taliban and now with current President Karzai was dumfounded by the thought that any moderates existed in the radically Islamic Taliban organization. By their very definition they are radicals.

In the meantime, while Cuba is in a state of potential transition with the eminent death of Fidel Castro who currently holds sway over the government through his aging brother Raul, President Obama is talking of lifting sanctions against the country. Wouldn’t the lifting of sanctions be a great tool and popular selling point for an anti-communist opposition that may have a chance with Fidel’s death and an aging and apparently more moderate Raul? Why cut off the one leg that they may have to stand on?

I once heard then Senator Obama described as “Jimmy Carter without the wisdom”. With President Obama taking strength out of our position on foreign policy, that statement may be more true than the joke it was meant to be.