Obama Looks to Abandon Poland
I see that Obama is already abandoning our staunchest allies.
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has made “no commitment” to plans for a missile defense program in eastern Europe, despite a report on the Polish president’s Web site, an Obama adviser said Saturday.
Obama spoke to President Lech Kaczynki over the phone about continuing military and political cooperation between the two countries and possibly meeting in person soon, both sides said.
Obama “had a good conversation with the Polish president and the Polish prime minister about the important U.S.-Poland alliance,” said Denis McDonough, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser.
However, Kaczynski’s office says on its Web site that during the same conversation, Obama told Kaczynski that he intends to continue plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe.
Obama’s adviser denied the report.
“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable,” McDonough said.
Poland took a substantial risk in support of America and angered its historic adversary and neighbor, Russia. Now it looks like Obama is intent on leaving them to the whims of the Bear.
Oh, and the technology does work. It’s been tested and proven many times.
Good lord, he’s hardly abandoning Poland just because he doesn’t want to put missiles there. Lots of people don’t want us to put missiles there. Poland’s still a member of NATO, after all. Why should we poke the Russians in the eye for no good reason? They have legitimate defensive concerns; they don’t want missile launchers just a few hundred miles from their capital.
I think our foreign policy is going to consist of a lot less giving the rest of the world the finger for a while.
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2022 hrsapc - did you ever stop to think that maybe the Poles want the missile defense? They have lived under the Russian/Soviet rule before. Especially in light of what Russia did to Georgia.
Prediction - Russia will invade Ukraine and completely absorb Georgia as one of the “tests” on Obama. What will the US do? Ask them nicely to leave?
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2030 hrsOwen, there is no such thing as a missile defense shield. Poland is in NATO; nobody’s abandoning them.
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2104 hrsUh huh
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
Posted by Owen on November 08, 2008 at 2109 hrs
It doesn’t exist. If Russia launched 50 missiles at Poland, could we intercept a single one?
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2117 hrsDepends. Right now the missile bases aren’t complete in Poland. But we do have ships capable of intercepting missiles if they happen to be in the right place. Still, you stated that it didn’t exist at all - not specific to Poland. Clearly you were misinformed.
Posted by Owen on November 08, 2008 at 2121 hrsThere are many miles between “no comment” and “abandoning an ally.” So something is being made out of essentially nothing.
Just because some people believe this billions of dollars investment works doesn’t mean others do—http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/p olitics/wire/sns-ap-obama-missile-defense,0,546553.story .
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2130 hrsSteve and Keith,
Do you think that you will ever be able to honestly critique Obama or any liberal for that matter?
There is a big difference between saying that we value Poland and will support them in every way appropriate and say that we are non-committal.
APC - there is no legitimate Russian defensive concerns with having these missiles in Poland. They are intercept missiles; not ballistic attack or cruise missiles. Russia is the proven aggressor including their threat to put offensive missiles on the border.
We can be hopeful that Obama does the right thing while still honestly holding him accountable for possible mistakes.
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2158 hrsThe MDA puts its best face forward to the public, of course, and they’re getting better at it, but the system’s still just not reliable. Even that story dated 1Nov acknowledges one hit and one miss on a controlled test.
What’s the rush anyway? The ostensible reason for putting them there is to deter the Iranians. The Iranians are still at least a couple of years away from having nuclear weapons.
So why not keep this as a chip to use in future negotiations with the Russians? What’s the rush to simply be belligerent for its own sake and try to shove these missiles down the Russians’ throat.
That’s the very foreign policy he ran his entire campaign against.
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2204 hrsIf the concern is truly “rogue” states, then why wasn’t the proposed missile base situated more strategically BETWEEN Europe and said rogue states? Russia is rightfully concerned; we’ve been fighting the cold war every day since the fall of the Soviet Union. It amazes me that we can feed them a line of crap and expect them to believe it.
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2226 hrsHow you can you be opposed to a defensive missle system? Unless you want to be offensive to the country at some point in the future?
If Russia attacks Poland - what should we do?
Posted by on November 08, 2008 at 2327 hrsHow about not provoking a nation with thermonuclear weapons? Do Americans REALLY want the risk of a war with Russia for the sake of Poland?
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 0353 hrsdax: Didn’t bother the Left to get into the middle a civil war in the Balkans. Why is this a problem?
At least Poland is some national interest (i.e., we signed an agreement with them. No such agreement existed in the Balkans)
Posted by Steve on November 09, 2008 at 0647 hrsHow about we debate whether or not to include Poland under a missile shield when we actually have one?
OT: Owen, what’s up with the Aggies this year? I expected that they might be able to at least put a shock into my Sooners down in Kyle Field, but the Aggies just got crushed.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 0728 hrsThe Russkis’ propaganda (once again) is swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the LeftoWackies.
DEFENSE is not OFFENSE. Maybe Keith and apc don’t understand football, either…
And as mentioned above, those DEFENSIVE missiles are useful for MusloFascist aggression, too.
I haven’t seen the Russkis promise to protect Poland and Western Europe from Iran or Syria.
Posted by dad29 on November 09, 2008 at 0845 hrsdax: a missile defense sheild is NOT provoking with thermonuclear weapons. In reality, Russia is sorta doing that.
But I shouldn’t be surprised at the “Blame America First” crowd is thinking Russia is righteous on this. While western Europe was all-a-tingle over the Obama victory, those that have lived under Soviet rule and are now looking at Russia’s intentions are much less enthusiastic.
Being non-committal doesn’t exactly exude warm fuzzies. See if the US has a little base in Poland to maintain these defensive missles, the Russians would be far less like to cross any borders. Just because Obama wants to sing Kum-Bay-Yah doesn’t mean Putin is joining the second chorus.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 1106 hrsIf it doesn’t work. why would the Russians care where we put it?
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 1802 hrsdad, I’m well aware of the difference between offense and defense. Are you aware what unnecessary provocation means? Oh, and by the way, I know plenty about football; I’ve played it and watched it for the better part of 50 years now.
Allow me to say it again. The days where we simply tell the rest of the world to go f**k itself are over. And you know what else is over? The days where the whole calling someone a part of the “Blame America First” crowd or denigrating their patriotism has any traction. Seriously, kiss my ass.
Russia’s not going to attack Poland for the same reason it’s not going to attack France. They’re both members of NATO, for Christ’s sake. Russia’s spoiling for a fight, but they’re not going to launch an attack on NATO.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 1850 hrsJust like they respected the territorial integrity of Georgia? apc, you’ve been around a while. What happens every time a bully gets away with pushing someone around? Right. they get bolder. Hitler “just wanted the Sudetenland”.
But go ahead. Keep living in a dreamland.
Posted by Steve on November 09, 2008 at 1859 hrsGeorgia fired first. Doesn’t justify Russia’s overreaction, but Georgia’s hands aren’t clean, either.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 1912 hrsapc -
Why wouldn’t Russia invade Poland, or the Ukraine, or any other country they wanted back for that matter, regardless of any NATO membership? Seriously? What’s going to stop them? With the exception of the Brits and sometimes the Italians, the rest of the NATO group are a bunch of wusses. Germany has troops in Afghanistan, but won’t let them actually do anything. The Dutch let the Serbs do some mass murder in Bosnia. The French - well, they are the French.
Russia has Europe by the short hairs because they control the natural gas supply. The European enviro-whackos have already made them reliant on foreign energy. Sorta like the US, only worse. Ironically, the French got that one right with their nukes, but Germany is currently shutting down their last reactors to become more reliant on Russian gas. The threats against Ukraine and Georgia are all about controlling the energy supply so Russia can be the biggest, baddest bully in the neighborhood. The former eastern bloc countries have seen this movie before, the western European countries are willingly bending over and Obama will be there with the lube.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 1927 hrsWhere to start?
Russia wouldn’t invade Poland because they no longer have the Red Army of 1975. They’re not going to come pouring through the Fulda Gap. It’s a stout force, but they’re not going to take Western Europe with it, for cryin’ out loud. The Germans and the Poles in particular have a history of ferociously defending their land. Calling the Europeans a bunch of wusses is exactly the kind o
As to the natural gas angle, if what you say is true (and I’m not granting that it is) that’s even more reason not to piss off the Russians for no other reason than just to be belligerent. Why give the Russians a reason to shut off the gas? Jesus, again, it’s not 1975. We don’t have to match the damn Russians every time they do something, and we don’t have to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick every now and then to show them how f-ing macho we are.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 2026 hrsoops. Calling the Europeans a bunch of wusses is exactly the kind of “diplomacy” that’s turned us into such a pariah nation.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 2029 hrsIf they weren’t wusses, we wouldn’t have to call them that.
Posted by Steve on November 09, 2008 at 2035 hrsHowever, that doesn’t deny the fact that since the end of WWII, Europe, for the most part, has relied 100% on the USA protecting them, and the rest of the world for that matter. They fold faster than cheap lawn chairs. See my above post for examples. The UN is corrupt and impotent. It will be interesting, at a minimum, for the next few years to see who the REAL bullies in the world are as long as we have Obama following the European lead of just being nice. It worked wonders in Rwanda and Bosnia with letting the UN and Europe take the lead, and we are about to get a nuclear Iran for the same reason. The Western Europeans are a bunch of wusses.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 2036 hrsRegarding the natural gas angle. The Russkies already dicked around with Europe with cutting it off a couple of years ago, just to see how they would respond, and Europe obliged by rolling over like a lapdog. Even after that, Merckel is still planning on caving to the “No Nukes” crowd in Germany and shut down their last reactors. The way to tell Russia to stuff it is to A) stand up to them and B) get energy independent.
Why do you think most of the McCain backers were chanting Drill Baby Drill? It wasn’t because we want to destroy the earth, its because we want REAL energy independence and we want it now. You can’t appease despots into liking you or talk them out of doing something they are hell-bent on doing. North Korea went further nuke on Clinton’s watch. Why? Because they “talked” to them and they lied. I would love nothing better than to tell the Saudis to shove it, but we need our own base load capable energy sources. That means oil, and coal, and natural gas, and nuclear. If the environuts want to fill in with wind and solar to feel good, I’m cool with that too. But, alas, I won’t hold my breath for those for the next four years either.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 2052 hrsSo, apc, you’re wise to football? Good.
S’pose the team’s head coach knows linebacker from fullback? And which one is an OFFENSIVE weapon?
And, by the way--we’re all waiting for The Bear to promise defense of Poland from the Muzzies.
Or you could, personally.
OR we could simply leave the DEFENSIVE missiles there.
And I happen to agree with you that the US should not be doing whatever it feels like, anywhere on earth.
But the Poles ASKED for those missiles. We didn’t put them there all by ourselves.
Is that a little too complex for you to understand?
Finally, we also agree that the loony who runs Georgia is a few cans short of a case--which is why the USA didn’t push back too hard.
Posted by dad29 on November 09, 2008 at 2114 hrsThe Europeans don’t like us? Boo Hoo. They didn’t seem to mind us in the Cold War when we were all the stood between them becoming the next Soviet state, or when we bailed out their butts in World War II and I.
Posted by on November 09, 2008 at 2138 hrsHard to believe that anyone could possibly be arguing not to “poke the Russians in the eye,” be “belligerant,” “not provoking a nation with thermonuclear weapons,” “don’t poke them in the eye with a sharp stick”. All as a response to a defensive weapons system in another nation that’s in a strategic buffer zone. You do know Russia has nukes, don’t you?!?
Just what exactly is your point? Russia continues to operate from a belligerant, aggressive, militant, tyrannical ideology. 75 Red Guard or not, you don’t turn a blind eye to that.
The only thing more tiresome and pointless is the “pariah nation” meme. Allies have to be useful and in line with our goals, not drive policy for the sake of being likeable.
Posted by tee bee on November 09, 2008 at 2349 hrsHypocrisy always gives me a good chuckle. We have a nation full of liberal educators constantly telling us how racist we are and that we need to go younger and younger to program those bad ideas out of humans. We have the descendants of those people that have been taken advantage of, black, white poor, being championed for historical wrongs…
apc, isn’t it time to start saying this is not 1875? Instead of spluttering, think about it. IF there is still so much racism and oppression that we still need the favorble legislation for minorities and the labor unions, how is it so hard to conceive that Russia would not continue their historical trends of control and bullying? NATO has never been effective, save when the bulk of the work and threat was done by US troops.
Also, please describe how deploying defensive missiles in a nation that asked us for them is a ‘black eye’ to Russia. Is it that we are agreeing with Poland that we do not trust them? How so? Russia has not promised not to ‘secure its interests’. Either historical trends are important or they are not.
Do you really believe that all of ‘the world superpowers’ have ‘progressed’ socially to the point that we (including allies) do not need to be concerned at all about old Russian grudges and aggression? Then I say kill the racial complaints, they are so 1875.
Note, I do not really think there is no racism, I believe it is stupid (and hypocritical) to be selective in your historical trend beliefs. I think you are judging Russia as you would judge France or Germany...wusses.
Posted by on November 10, 2008 at 1014 hrsNATO has never been effective? I suppose the Soviets managed reach the Bay of Biscay after all…
Posted by on November 10, 2008 at 1040 hrsT--1975, not 1875, and how did racism and oppression get dragged into this discussion? I simply said that Russia today is not the overwhelming threat that the USSR was in 1975.
dad, allow me to be condescending back to you. S’pose the opposing head coach says “I’ll put this nickel back in the formation, but don’t worry about it, because he’s just there for 3rd down. It’s only 1st down now, and he won’t do anything, I promise.” Defensive, offensive, what damned difference does it make? It’s a missile system right on their doorstep, and a missile system will shoot at whatever the hell it’s programmed to shoot at.
All of which misses the entire point. It’s incredibly stupid and counterproductive to do this right now. In case y’all haven’t noticed, we’re in the middle of a financial meltdown, two wars, a health care crisis, I mean the list goes on and on. We don’t need to pick a totally irrational fight with the Russians over a bullshit issue.
Posted by on November 10, 2008 at 1117 hrsSame old Steve-O. You are so 1975. I fully retract that one sentence (I almost did figuring someone would find one good thing about NATO history). Do you have anything useful or intelligent to say on the point of my comment(or ever)?
And actually, I do believe that a NATO without the US would be a totally ineffective military deterrent.
apc, I paralleled my comment and I said 1875 on purpose (look ma, no quote marks). My point was that the issues of Russia are not the issues of the US. I think those of liberal bent tend to judge those of other races/countries after their own hearts more than those with conservative views. It is not meant as a criticism (if you want to me to explain why I think that at any point I would be happy to), except as a blind hypocrisy. I use the term blind in its denotative sense rather than as an adjective meaning huge, gaping, etc.
Liberals and minorities use history as a 100 year+ old bludgeon when it comes to issues they support (actually most people do, I guess) but ignore history if it applies to foreign policy, especially when it concerns the attitudes of strangers. Russia is not in the middle of a moral or financial crisis. Their financials are as good as they have ever been thanks to energy. This is definitely the time to assert aggressiveness abroad.
I do not think Obama apears weak abroad so much as concerned with fixing domestic issues. Our perception from the world is that they want us to butt out and maybe we should. That does not mean, however, that the world will become a nicer place to live when we go home.
So I ask the questions:
Posted by on November 10, 2008 at 1230 hrs
If an ally asks for help do we still give it to them?
If an ally asks to buy defensive materiel do sell it to them?
You say we should not become embroiled or do anything that might provoke something to become embroiled in… (anywhere?) What are your limits?I am looking at history. Russian history. To us, this is just another power projection project. No big deal. The Russians have been invaded from the west many times, and as a people, they have an extremely long memory. There is no bigger deal to them than this; this is practically on their border. If you’ll recall, we nearly fought a nuclear war over missiles right on our border (and yes, for all those waiting to pounce, I know they were a different kind of missile). Just like parts of this country, there’s still a lingering Cold War mindset, with the paranoia that goes with it.
And you’re right, they’re flush with cash right now. We just went another trillion dollars in the hole. Why is now the time for us to assert aggressiveness?
As to your questions:
1. Do we still aid our allies if they ask? Of course. To the best of our abilities and insofar as our treaty obligations require. That’s why the whole premise of this post was idiotic. First and foremost the US isn’t abandoning anyone. Poland is a member of NATO; an attack on Poland is the same as an attack on the US. Just because the Poles want these missiles doesn’t mean we’re obligated to give them to them. Now if George W. Bush has signed a treaty agreeing to it, thten we should suck it up and keep our word, but I still think it’s a really bad idea.2. Do we sell them stuff? Sure. Up to a point. We keep all the really cool stuff for ourselves. Proprietary information and all. But let’s be smart about it. Sometimes Afghan freedom fighters become Taliban warriors. I know, easy to say 20 years later, but still…
3. No, I didn’t say we shouldn’t become embroiled in or provoke anything anywhere. I said this particular one would be a really, really dumb one to provoke. Having those missiles in Poland doesn’t really serve any immediate need, or actually even any intermediate need, of our country. If we have to jump in somewhere, well then we do, but why pick a fight over something that doesn’t provide any tangible benefit? My limits? Not quite sure what you mean. I’d respond to each situation differently of, course. Are you asking me would I respond to an armed incursion of an ally we had a treaty with, that kind of thing? Of course, I would. My foreign policy views are actually fairly orthodox centrist Democrat.
Posted by on November 10, 2008 at 2139 hrsI meant Russians may feel it is time for aggression not the US. So if there is no treaty, but Poland will buy them, you kind of said you would and you wouldn’t. Are missiles that shoot down other missiles ‘too cool’ to sell to Poland?
The last question was more or less rhetorical, asking really just for you to answer the questions(and I meant as pertains to this current situation, sorry). You did answer, but you gave a real politician’s answer. Would you give/sell these defense missiles to Poland? There is no current treaty, just an earlier assent by the former President. Basically you said you would if they weren’t too cool, but you wouldn’t because it is Russia as well as Iran that they would be pointed towards. As an actual answer so far, I give it a D.
If we have to jump in somewhere, well then we do, but why pick a fight over something that doesn’t provide any tangible benefit?
Until an actual armed incursion occurs many alliances do not provide tangible benefits. Poland is a buffer for Europe not us. They have little trade value to us, but I would argue they hold the ‘have been invaded’ trump card over Russia by a large margin. A very large margin. That is probably why they have staunchly defended US policies more than any other continental European country. They know they need a big brother. Now a former tormentor has found a new gang and a big club and is beginning to terrorize the neighborhood again. NEED? Russia may have no intention of harming Poland in any way, but Poland may be hard to convince.
So let’s say hypotheically, that there had been no agreements what so ever before today. Poland wants to buy a missile defense system from us, because they fear Russia. Sell or not sell?
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 0843 hrsTo just bluntly answer your question: no. For all the reasons I’ve listed above, and to sum up--the many possible negative consequences to basic US interests outweigh assuaging the Poles’ fear of Russia.
If I had known I was going to be graded, I’d have tried to find out better what you wanted in an answer. Look, I thought this was a political discussion. I gave a political answer, which by the way, has been consistent all the way through--this is a bad idea.
Tangible benefits was probably a bad choice of terms, I’ll grant you that. I’m not sure what would be better, positive outcomes, maybe? Although that’s kind of weaselly, but I guess it’s the opposite of negative consequences. I meant that I didn’t see there being any good outcome to US interests from doing this, just bad ones. Well, other than making the Poles feel better, but that’s pretty low on my list of priorities.
You accused me of not bringing historical perspective; I’m telling you, the Russians are still pissed off about Napoleon. Not this fight, not now. I’m just being practical. There are a lot of things more important than this.
We seem to agree on some things; looks like this isn’t going to be one of them.
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 1159 hrsI did not mean to be yanking any chains here and I did not say I agreed or disagreed. You just seemed to have answered yes and no. I was not fishing for anything in your answer at all.
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 1209 hrs
Truth to tell, I am a moderate isolationist when it comes to military presence abroad. Commerce is the opposite. I am pro-trade with everyone. I think I have to grade the wording of my question as a D as well.
My opinion is that I am glad I do not have to make that decision, or even that kind of decision.TUERQAS, given that NATO was founded as an alliance to defend against Soviet aggression, I’d say that they fulfilled their role nicely, save for some bumps along the way with France. It’s perfectly relevant to current events because Poland is a NATO member that the US, Germany, UK, France et al are obligated to aid in the event of a Russian attack. Since the same alliance managed to deter a much more powerful Soviet Union for decades, I have a lot of confidence that they can continue to do so against Russia in the coming years.
Back to the topic at hand, nobody is abandoning Poland. Barack Obama refused to discuss a defense system that does not exist, and Medvedev/Putin backed down because they looked like asses in the face of cool and calm Obama.
Russia isn’t operating from a position of strength, either. Energy prices are way down, removing the crutch that Putin & co. have used for some time to bolster their power. Their other crutch looks like it’s going to be sabre-rattling, so an reciprocal escalation of tensions by Obama would only serve Putin’s purposes.
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 1237 hrsSorry, that was a little brusque, looking back at it. Part of what I meant was that anti-ballistic missile and other cutting edge technology is the very definition of what I meant by ‘cool stuff.’ I don’t see putting these missiles in Poland as trade, as simply selling them to Poland. I see it as statecraft at the highest level, and the Russians absolutely see it that way. Selling Poland M1-A1s and F-15s is trade--barely. This would be a deliberate provocation, and to no good end that I can see.
I’m at least a semi-free trader myself. Not quite sure how to make it work properly, but I’m not sure anyone does.
I just think certain things don’t fall under the trade umbrella; this is one of them.
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 1640 hrsOh, I agree with you. I did not mean “trading” to mean I think we should sell military ordnance to anyone or even any ally. I am not against it either as a private enterprise to an extent.
Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 1648 hrs
Ol' Army
