[Gadi Adelman is] "Leading in the movement in the study of counter-terrorism", Dr. Walid Phares, Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives

Apologize To Our Enemies, Sellout Our Allies

User Rating: / 6

Apologize To Our Enemies, Sellout Our AlliesWhat is motivating the current administration to castigate allies like Israel and Egypt, while apologizing to enemies for America’s past? Britain is another ally that is being short-changed…

Ronald Reagan would have celebrated his 100th birthday yesterday and I can’t help but think of one of his most popular phrases, “Peace through strength”. Reagan used this phrase during his election challenge against Jimmy Carter, accusing the incumbent of weak, vacillating leadership that invited enemies to attack the U.S. and its allies.

Over the past two years the Obama administration has been all over the world apologizing to everyone, including our enemies, for past U.S. policies.  What started in 2009 with Obama’s speech in Cairo when the Muslim Brotherhood was invited to attend, to most currently telling Egypt’s President Mubarak to step-down “now”, it seems that our current administration is systematically selling out our allies.

Last Tuesday evening Obama stated after speaking with Mubarak by telephone,

“Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders.  Only the Egyptian people can do that.”

But he then followed that up with,

“What is clear -- and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak -- is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”

As if the apologizing didn’t make us appear weak enough, it now appears that the administration is lying to, and betraying, other allies.

Say what you want about Wikileaks, but what they have brought forward over the past week about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaty with Russia is beyond eye opening. According to an article in the British paper The Telegraph,

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today [2-6-11].

I have stated in the past that Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter did, but this really takes the cake. The U.K. had been asked about sharing this information and told our administration in no uncertain terms “No!” Our administration assured our closest ally that we would not divulge this information as explained in the same article,

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

The actual cable in question is below and all the others can be found here,

13. (S) The second was an agreed statement on the transfer of Tridents II SLBMs to the United Kingdom. Begin text: Document of the Russian side February 9, 2010 Agreed Statement On the movement of SLBM "Trident-II" missiles, transferred by the US to equip the Navy of Great Britain The Parties agree that, in order to increase transparency in relation to the use of "Trident-II" SLBMs, transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America shall provide notification to the Russian Federation about the time of such transfer, as well as the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles. The Parties agree that, upon conclusion of the life cycle of "Trident-II" SLBMs transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America will send notification to the Russian Federation about the time and method of elimination, as well as the unique identifier for each of the transferred missiles. End text.

Misleading and lying to allies is something that undoubtedly goes on with each and every country, but I’m pretty sure it is done without compromising the ally’s defense capabilities or even more so, to produce something beneficial in return. The START treaty is far from that, as explained by The just last September,

For example, to meet the New START-mandated warhead limits of 1,550 per side, we must eliminate almost 80 more warheads than Russia does. In other words, the reduction applies mostly to us.

It doesn’t end there, either.

America also needs to get rid of as many as 150 delivery vehicles (e.g., missiles and bombers) to reach the 700 limit stipulated in the pact. Oddly, Russia can add more than 130 platforms under New START.

Besides the peculiarity of allowing Russia to build up, the drawdown on our side could have an effect on our ability to fight conventional wars using these weapons in places such as the Korean Peninsula.

In addition, U.S. conventional warheads on ICBMs are counted toward the treaty’s nuclear-warhead ceiling. This could limit the deployment of “Prompt Global Strike” — an ICBM armed with a non-nuclear payload that could be used globally on short notice — as well as future counter-space weapons.

Then there’s missile defense. The White House insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s take is strikingly different, stating: “[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

Moreover, New START doesn’t get at another atomic affair, that of Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal. Moscow may have as many as 15,000 battlefield nukes, trumping Washington by as much as a 10:1 margin.

And in a world that is arming — not disarming — could these major reductions in our nuclear force create (or feed) an image of American weakness and decline, leading to misperception and miscalculation — and conflict?

Obama sees it differently, believing U.S. leadership on disarmament (even unilateral) gives us greater moral standing in battling proliferation. But will others follow? Looking around the world, there’s no evidence of “denuclearization discipleship” so far.

This administration has apologized to those that attacked us on 9/11, shunned Israel and given their government ultimatums. They told the leader of Egypt who has helped keep the peace in the Middle East and worked with us against terror to step-down now rather than later.

In 2009 they decided to scrap plans for a U.S. missile defense shield for two other allies, the Czech Republic and Poland. That was done as “a positive step” according to the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. “Obama’s decision will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program”, said a Russian analyst.  Yes, we have all seen how well that worked out.

Now they have given Russia intimate details of the U.K.’s nuclear arsenal and capabilities behind Britain’s back, at what point will this end? Have we become the land of the free information and the home of the weak?

We are no longer are the strong and mighty U.S., and at the rate we are going if we don’t turn this country around, this can only end one way. Think about this, in 1964 Ronald Reagan stated the following in a Campaign Address for Barry Goldwater,

“Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second – surrender.”


Comments (0)
Write comment
Your Contact Details:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.