Pat Buchanan said on his blog a couple months back...
"With these opening moves, how might Obama test the water for a better relationship with the Russia of Medvedev and Vladimir Putin?
First, Obama should restate his campaign position that no anti-missile system will be deployed in Poland until fully tested.
Second, he should declare that, as this system is designed to defend against an Iranian ICBM with a nuclear warhead, it will not be deployed until Iran has tested an ICBM and an atomic device.
So long as the Iranian threat remains potential, not actual, there is no need to deploy a U.S. missile defense in Poland against it.
Third, he should invite Medvedev to Camp David to discuss what more they might do together to ensure that no such Iranian threat, to either nation, ever materializes. For if Iran does not test an ICBM or atomic device, what is the need for a missile defense in East Europe?"
On the surface, this sounds like a workable path to resolution. But my problem is that Pat (and those like-minded) seem to want to overlook that Russia and Iran are apparent allies on Iran's energy and defence. And as long as Russia is going to provide them with fuel and arms (and who knows what else under the table) then why should we offer to conditionally deploy the shield? How do we know that Russia isn't decrying the shield on Iran's behalf or because Iran has threatened to pull back some kind of lucrative economic or trade deal?
"The second bone of contention between us is prospective NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine.
As NATO is a military alliance, at the heart of which is Article V, which obligates every ally to come to the defense of a member who is attacked, to bring Georgia in would be madness.
To cede to Saakashvili power to bring us into confrontation with Russia would be to rival British stupidity in giving Polish colonels power to drag the empire into war with Germany over Danzig, which is exactly what the Polish colonels proceeded to do in 1939."
Now this is a point that I had not considered concerning the issue. It is one to ponder.
It is very disturbing that as Buchanan gets older, he is making it much more difficult for those who (like me) previously defended him against charges of crypto-Nazism to do so. His recent statements (echoed in his blog post) suggesting that Poland "dragged" Britain and France into WWII and that Hitler's invasion of Poland was legitimate are truly appalling.
However, I happen to agree that the rampant expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is ill-advised, for a few reasons. One, it is supposed to be a predominantly Anglo-American and Western European security pact. Two, with the Cold War over, an argument can be made that NATO has outlasted its usefulness. Three, expanding NATO to nations bordering the Russian Federation unnecessarily provokes the Russians (think how we'd feel if the Warsaw Pact grew to include Mexico and Canada). Fourth, expansion (as Buchanan does rightly point out) will obligate the United States to defend nations with whom we have no deep-seated historical or geopolitical ties. We would do well to heed Washington's warning against entangling alliances; and if an anti-missile system needs to be deployed, surely there are other far-flung places to deploy it (Alaska, Guam, our bases in Germany, Israel, etc.)
Posted by: Daniel James Lula | 04 February 2009 at 12:55
"Three, expanding NATO to nations bordering the Russian Federation unnecessarily provokes the Russians..."
As an American I find Russia's energy, tech, and arms deals with Iran and China, and actions that would dictate support of Israel's enemies, to be provoking.
The problem I have with Buchanan comparing the NATO situation with the Mexico/Cuba scenario is that historically we are one of the good guys, where likewise Russia is an instigator. The U.S. has never based military strategy on building an empire; Russia has jealously and ambitiously sought empirical power almost since it first evolved from fragmented tribes.
NATO as it is structured currently has not so much outlived its usefulness as it has allowed for a very weak Europe. NATO ought to be replaced, or at the least rewritten, in a way that requires western Europe to take on the majority of the responsibility in regards to eastern Europe (the former Soviet bloc is not the only issue anymore). For Europe's sake, our formal alliance should be limited to defencive tech, specialised personnel, and intelligence.
Posted by: Joshua Radke | 04 February 2009 at 23:34
And this just came through the WSJ today as further proof that this whole thing with the defence shield was nothing more than a convenient excuse to put into motion other regional desires and to leverages:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123378027003448977.html
Posted by: Joshua Radke | 05 February 2009 at 16:57