ILLINOIS EDITORIAL FORUM
By Chris Miller
As a former U.S. Army nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons specialist I was always skeptical of the assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After I hit ground in Iraq in April, 2003, it soon became clear he didn’t have any. The U.S. searched the entire country for months trying to find them, but to this day nothing more than a few dusty chlorine gas mortars have ever turned up in Iraq. What would have happened if Hussein had complied with the IAEA inspection regime voluntarily? The 2003 Iraq war would likely never have happened. Because he did not comply, it was open to conjecture whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or were trying to acquire them. The rest is history.
In view of that, why would we dither, delay, or play politics with a treaty that would allow us to continue a responsible, voluntary inspection regime with a partner state that we know for a fact, with certainty, has nuclear arms, lots of them, and is simply waiting for the U.S. Senate to sign on the dotted line? Why would we risk significantly setting back relations with Russia and at the same time make it much harder to verify that their nukes are secure? Ask the Senate GOP leadership.
The old START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was negotiated and signed in the early nineties under President George H.W. Bush, based on a concept by President Ronald Reagan. The treaty served the U.S. well through the era of instability at the end of the Cold War and the New START would simply continue what was already a good idea. It has served us well for the last two decades and, if passed, would continue to today. It would reduce nuclear stockpiles by one third on both sides, still leaving America with more than enough firepower to defend itself. It would responsibly allow mutual transparency and allow us to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons and material.
In addition to the original concerns START was designed to address, more modern concerns may be added to the list of reasons New START must be passed now, not later. Nuclear proliferation is a tremendous concern today, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reducing stockpiles means less nukes and nuclear material that could fall into the hands of unstable states or groups. Fewer nuclear weapons, less nuclear material, and better control makes us all safer. North Korea and Pakistan have already acquired nuclear weapons through the back door and Iran is certainly trying to. The
black-market smuggling ring led by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan shows there is a hot market worldwide for nuclear technology. For an entire year already America has been unable to account for all of Russia’s nuclear material and there are certainly buyers out there who will stop at nothing to acquire it. New START would close the loophole. Not doing so is like crossing our fingers and hoping nothing happens.
Nuclear terrorism is the ultimate threat to United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have already stated they are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. They’re not alone. Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas would also jump at the chance. Hollywood never stops thinking up movie plots involving a nuke smuggled into America. If they can think of it, so can terrorists and extremists. For these reasons the U.S. military is also urging the passage of New START. Keeping nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of terrorists is a top national security priority. Not signing New START would be reckless and leave us vulnerable to attack.
The Senate Republican leadership opposes passing the treaty because of politics. They are more concerned with opposing President Obama than they are keeping America safe. There is bipartisan support for the treaty and it would and certainly should be ratified, if only the GOP leadership would put politics aside and put our security first. START was entered into between two states that possessed the nuclear arms to ensure they would mutually destroy one another in a nuclear attack. ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ kept America and the USSR at a standstill. Today, unstable states and terrorist groups are not so inclined. Extremists and terrorists are unconcerned about the destruction a nuclear attack would create on both sides and many are already fully prepared to die for their cause.
GOP opposition to New START is outdated, out of touch, and disastrously dangerous. The treaty needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate as soon as possible so that we can jointly and responsibly reduce and monitor nuclear weapons and material, prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and put our security first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Miller is a Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge recipient and eight-year U.S. Army veteran, having served two tours in Baghdad, Iraq. He is currently a law student and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Illinois Editorial Forum. 12/10
Showing posts with label National Defense and Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Defense and Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
By: Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson (ret.)
At this time of thanksgiving, we are reminded how people came together, shared resources, shared opinions and worked together to form and protect our nation.
During my long career in the US Air Force I was at the very sharp end of the spear that defended our nation, rising to deputy commander-in-chief and chief of staff of U.S. Strategic Command.
During that time, going back to the Reagan years and before, the U.S. methodically and relentlessly carved out a process for understanding and reducing strategic nuclear arms -- in order increase our national security.
Many have forgotten or did not live through those times during the Cold War when the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery platforms were escalating at a tremendous rate and costs were ratcheting up at an ever-increasing pace.
It was courageous of political leaders in those perilous times to begin talking to our heavily-armed enemy, the Soviet Union, to find paths to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, lower cost burdens, and greater security for our country and the world.
Since those efforts took root, real progress has been made, the numbers of very deadly weapons are dramatically lower, costs have dropped, and our security vis-à-vis the former Soviet states is far stronger.
Today we have a good treaty ready to take force and continue the progress on numbers, costs, and national security.
The New START Treaty that is presently before the Senate contains verification and transparency measures—that will allow our inspectors inside Russian strategic nuclear facilities, as well as create stability between our forces.
Without New START, we will reintroduce uncertainty into the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship. Over the length of the Cold War, we learned that uncertainty breeds mistrust, costly worst-case planning, and risk. New START reduces uncertainty by locking in the size of each side’s arsenal and providing for onsite verification. The resulting improved strategic stability that will come with New START will make it possible for both sides to pursue agreements on tactical nuclear weapons and proliferation.
Without ratification, we will be left with the requirement to spend our limited resources and money on weapons we don’t need to counter a force structure that could be verifiably reduced under the treaty.
Without New START our national security institutions will need to devote more resources to monitoring Russian strategic forces, by satellite and other means; we will also have to force- plan for scenarios we should not need to. This will involve spending money where we don’t need, and worse, it could mean taking away money from programs and systems that our war-fighters actually do need.
What stands in the way? An ever more vague, disingenuous, and ill-advised raising of the bar for political support. The very same questions that have been asked and answered about missile defense, verification, and stewardship of the nuclear enterprise are brought up again and again in the face of iron clad analysis and billions of added dollars. These “red herrings” are presented wrapped in ever more demanding commitments from future legislators that no arms control treaty past or future could meet.
As this treaty is pushed off with no deadline and no path to prevent an already developing cooling of U.S., Russia relationships, Cold War nuclear realities echo in my head saying to Senators, “Do the right thing!”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Gen. Jameson (ret.) is a former deputy commander and chief and chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command who had responsibility for all ICBM strategic nuclear forces. He is a member of the Consensus for American Security http://www.securityconsensus.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 11/10
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
By Linda Tarr-Whelan
The so-called New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, is poised for an historic ratification vote in the Senate this year. Three more major international treaties are also lined up on President Obama’s ratification to-do list: the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women and girls around the world.
Our role as a human rights defender would be improved mightily by ratifying CEDAW, reasserting the United States as a strong global leader in standing up for women and girls in countries worldwide. The resulting glow of praise for the Senate from half the planet would result in more positive action.
Advancing women’s human rights worldwide is fundamental to America’s national security interests and a cornerstone of our foreign policy. CEDAW ratification would amplify the U.S. voice in defense of women and girls at a time when their rights, even their clothing, are a global battleground. It would send the strongest possible signal that America is back as an international team player on the one hand, while reasserting our proud bipartisan tradition of promoting and protecting human rights on the other.
At the moment, only seven of the United Nations’ 193 member countries have not ratified CEDAW – Iran, Sudan, Somalia, three small Pacific island countries (Nauru, Palau and Tonga), and the United States. Such embarrassing bedfellows! And being in their company weakens our impact in calling for women’s protections in other nations.
CEDAW offers a practical blueprint for action that every country can use to make progress toward ending discrimination – even ours. American women enjoy opportunities and status not available to most of the world’s women, but few would dispute that more progress is needed here, such as in ending domestic violence and closing the pay gap between men and women.
Importantly, CEDAW would not lead to any automatic changes in U.S. law, and at a time when we are worried about the deficit, there is no additional cost. This treaty provides a framework for the continuing national dialogue on women’s equality, as it does in every country. Similar treaties outlining global consensus on genocide, torture and race relations won ratification under the leadership of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
Every country has a different starting point, and CEDAW offers governments and women alike a view of what non-discrimination looks like. Many countries have overhauled their laws and policies because of CEDAW. Mexico City, for example, responded to a destabilizing epidemic of violence against women by using CEDAW terms in a General Law on Women’s Access to a Life Free from Violence, and all 32 Mexican states have now adopted it. Kenya used CEDAW to address differences in inheritance rights, eliminating discrimination against widows and daughters of the deceased. Kuwait recommended changes to its electoral law extending voting rights to women in 2005 based on CEDAW, and Bangladesh broadened access to education and vocational training for girls. Such examples are legion.
Basic health care, education, the right to work, to vote, to own property – it’s not news that girls and women are still denied those in too many places, or that they are forced or sold into marriage to much older men, or that violence against them is rampant, especially during conflict situations. Yes, some countries have ratified CEDAW and still discriminate against women – Saudi women still cannot drive cars, for example – but women in ratifying countries can and do demand that their governments live up to their CEDAW commitments.
That pressure would be much stronger if the United States joined the CEDAW community. The American public strongly supports the principles of education, equality, fairness and basic human rights. CEDAW ratification requires 67 Senate votes. So please, senators, as you debate the New START, remember that women worldwide would get a new start as well from U.S. ratification of CEDAW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarr-Whelan is a Demos Distinguished Senior Fellow on Women’s Leadership and a former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 11/10
OHIO FORUM
By Pat Marida and Beatrice Brailsford
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering giving a $2 billion loan guarantee to United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to build a uranium enrichment facility in Ohio. Many in the state are hailing this project for bringing in much-needed jobs, but financially, the project is on shaky ground and is unlikely to bring anything but debt and dashed hopes to Ohio’s residents.
U.S. taxpayers are already on the hook for $2 billion in guarantees that DOE offered to the French government-owned company Areva to build a similar uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. Once that $3.3 billion facility gets a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and begins operating in four years or so, it is supposed to supply fuel to about 50 nuclear reactors, but not exclusively to plants in the U.S.
All this taxpayer money is being waved around in the name of moving the U.S. toward a clean energy policy. But what are American taxpayers being asked to invest in? Let’s take a closer look at the bets Washington is making with our tax dollars.
In Ohio, USEC's effort to build the American Centrifuge Plant has been riddled with ever-escalating costs and delays. The original estimated cost of $1.7 billion has soared to $4.6 billion in three short years. DOE actually rejected USEC’s initial loan guarantee application in July 2009, because of financial and technology problems.
USEC no longer has an estimated completion date, but the timing of the project is critical. Half of USEC’s business goes away in 2013 with the expiration of the U.S.-Russian agreement to use Russian down-blended uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons as fuel in U.S. reactors.
USEC has invested $1.8 billion in the project and obtained commitments of $100 million each from Toshiba and Babcock & Wilcox. These two companies won’t invest unless the $2 billion loan guarantee comes through, and the deal guarantees them huge profits off the top. Still, USEC will have at least a $600 million cost gap plus enormous financing costs.
In Idaho, Areva is planning to build the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility on the upstream end of the Snake River Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for about a quarter of the people who live in the state. Decommissioning will cost an additional $3.5 billion, for which Areva has offered something akin to a wink and a promise to pay. The facility will be situated a few miles east of the Idaho National Laboratory, which has left a sad legacy of nuclear waste that has already cost taxpayers billions to clean up.
Enrichment is a messy business, with a long history of contamination. Producing one ton of enriched uranium for use as nuclear fuel creates, on average, seven tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride waste – a highly toxic material that reacts violently with water and corrodes most metals. DOE is currently storing nearly three quarters of a million metric tons of uranium hexafluoride from decades of past enrichment activities.
The hexafluoride has to be removed before the depleted uranium can be disposed. Once it is removed, the remaining depleted uranium becomes increasingly radioactive over the course of a million years. At present, there is simply no place to put the stuff.
The USEC facility will generate another 265,300 metric tons of uranium hexafluoride; the Areva facility 320,000. This waste will be stored on-site until its turn comes for treatment, which will take at least 25 years because of the current backlog.
But is the investment of taxpayer dollars necessary to produce the fuel to keep U.S. reactors humming? Apparently not. On June 2, Urenco, another international company, cut the ribbon on a new uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico. The $2 billion facility will also serve a global market, but was built solely with private funds.
With three new enrichment facilities up and running and the ongoing delays and cancellations of new reactor projects, we will go from having too little reactor fuel to having too much. That means taxpayers will be asked to guarantee billions of dollars in a market that may soon be glutted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marida is the nuclear issues chair of the Ohio Sierra Club. Brailsford is the program director of the Snake River Alliance in Idaho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Ohio Forum. 11/10
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
By Susan Shaer
The partisan split in politics is getting old and stale. Real people want real solutions to real issues, and one of the gravest is within our grasp to solve. For decades, we have been under a nuclear cloud, but world and U.S. leaders have risen to the occasion to provide safeguards.
The United States and Russia maintain over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal of some 23,000 nuclear weapons. The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between our two countries that has provided for inspections and monitoring of these weapons expired nearly a year ago. The Senate now must ratify the New START treaty by a 2/3 margin (67 votes) to preserve the security protections of on-the-ground intelligence we have relied upon.
You may well ask what is taking our Senators so long? Sometimes the only solutions can be provided by government at the highest levels. The old START treaty was backed by Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Clinton. and now President Obama backs New START. Kennedy and Nixon supported efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. Bush II relied on START verification issues for his treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), better known as the Moscow Treaty. The mandate for strategic arms reduction appears to be bi-partisan and firm.
With such mighty support from the presidential level, why the delay? Nine months without a treaty? Nine months without safeguards and verification?
Legitimate questions have been asked and answered through 21 open and classified hearings. The testimony of more than 20 expert hearing witnesses has been heard, and New START has overwhelming support from across the political spectrum. Presidents and America’s military leadership (flag officers, former and current) support the treaty. Yet, Republicans are fence sitting, balking, or pushing it off.
We have now gone months without critical intelligence from on-site verification and monitoring in Russia. With the expiration of the START Treaty, our inspectors lost access to dozens of Russian sites. If the new treaty is not ratified we will lose this critical information and American national security will be at greater risk.
Failure to ratify New START would send a message of indifference to Russia and the rest of the world, voiding decades of arms control policy. Failure to ratify would be a warning sign to the world that the U.S. no longer stands behind its nuclear commitments.
Standard-bearers and negotiators for nuclear weapons controls in the United States span the spectrum from conservative to liberal. This is a subject so momentous it defies partisan politics. Or, it should.
This time, our negotiating team has the distinction of being led by very accomplished women. In decades past, Russian negotiators balked when there was a woman on the U.S. negotiating team. Today the issue for the Russians is not U.S. chief negotiator Rose Gottemoeller’s gender, it is her formidable credentials. According to the Washington Post, “one Russian military newspaper warned of the ‘danger’ in striking a deal with a woman who had run the Moscow Carnegie Center and had an ‘inside knowledge of Moscow's logic.’"
While there is the sharp partisan divide in the Senate these days, in the past Senators have left politics at the water’s edge and risen to the occasion to address pressing national security issues. The threats posed by nuclear terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear materials, and a lack of transparency and access to Russia’s nuclear weapons program is too dangerous to delay action any further.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the New START treaty on September 16th. It is now up to the whole Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), a national nonpartisan peace and security group, and national co-chair of Win Without War.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 9/10
By: Hugh Pringle
Nuclear arms control: What high school student cares, much less has anything to say about this global issue? Some policy issues feel as complicated as – well, rocket science. But that makes it even more important for us to understand them.
I started thinking about nuclear arms control while watching President Obama and Russian President Medvedev sign the New START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), agreeing to reduce, verify and inspect each other’s nuclear arsenals.
But wait, the Cold War is over, and last time I practiced my nuclear fallout escape plan was…well…never. I was sorely confused. I wondered how this was connected to the war on terrorism and our 21st century enemies. Curiosity took hold.
I looked up the original START and learned that this treaty was initiated by President Ronald Reagan, signed in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev, and ratified by 93 of 100 United States senators in 1992. And, as of December 2009, it expired. Expired? Perhaps I should re-think my nuclear fallout escape plan.
While researching the New START, I learned about that day in January 1995 when the world almost came to an end because Russia mistook a Norwegian research rocket for a U.S. Trident submarine nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin was given a short time to decide whether to launch a retaliatory strike; luckily, he chose not to respond. Had his decision been different, the devastation to our country -- and the world -- would have been unimaginable.
The prospect of nuclear engagement or accident isn’t an issue that affects solely the U.S. and Russia; it affects the entire world. Today, our enemies aren’t clear-cut or well-defined.
For years, terrorists have attempted to build a nuclear bomb. Such a bomb in terrorists’ hands is unacceptable, and the U.S. must ensure that it doesn’t happen. The proposal on the table clearly spells out that New START’s verification regime will make it much more difficult for terrorists to acquire fissile material.
I was impressed to learn about the overwhelming support for the New START Treaty among the military and security experts. It has, in the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “the unanimous support of the U.S. military.” Seven former commanders of STRATCOM recently wrote to the Senate, calling for the treaty’s prompt ratification. And a bipartisan group of 30 high level national security experts — including Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft — signed an open letter in support of the treaty.
Now that the Cold War is over, it is unnecessary and dangerous to maintain thousands of active nuclear bombs. New START brings the discussion of nuclear weapons into the 21st century and calls for sensible cooperation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. It shifts our focus from the enemies of yesterday to those of today.
I hope that, as the nation’s Senators consider ratification of the New START in the coming weeks, they’ll think about the safety of my generation and of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pringle, 17, is a senior at Woodward Academy (formerly Georgia Military Academy) in College Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Georgia Forum. 8/10
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
By Major General Paul D. Eaton
Through repeated tours at Fort Benning and eventually serving as its Commanding General, I got to know Georgia and Georgians pretty well. First, among the places I have served, my neighbors around Fort Benning display a pride, patriotism and national security awareness that helped me in my mission at the Home of the Infantry. And they are natural allies to those of us in uniform who devote our careers to America’s national security, our No. 1 priority while on active duty, and in retirement.
Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson will soon have the opportunity to protect America’s national security by voting in favor of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, which would further a process started by Ronald Reagan to verifiably reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads and 700 deployed launchers. The New START Treaty also ensures strategic stability by reinstating strong verification regime that allow U.S. inspectors, for the first time, to peer inside Russian missiles and track Russian warheads with unique identifiers.
As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written, “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership -- to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent.”
Recently, I joined a group of retired flag officers, including Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, former commander of all ICBM units and Deputy Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, in expressing my support for the New START accord. Like Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, we understand that the New START Treaty is essential to our national security.
For over 40 years, the U.S. has pursued strategic stability through an arms control process that has been vigorously supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. The New START Treaty both continues these established principles and tailors them to meet the security needs of the 21st century. In today's security environment we must protect against the dual threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. With the combined nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia accounting for nearly 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, the first step to nuclear security begins with New START.
The original START agreement expired on December 5, 2009, leaving the U.S., at present, without the intrusive inspection and verification regime that allowed U.S. inspectors to monitor Russia’s nuclear arsenal for so many years. The U.S. Senate should work to reinstate these verification provisions by ratifying the New START accord and getting U.S. boots back on the ground as soon as possible. Without these measures, our Strategic Command loses its access to Russia’s nuclear forces and the predictability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers is called into question.
Some have argued that we’ve not yet fully explored the treaty. That’s not true. The Senate has held an extensive series of hearings and meticulously reviewed the treaty and its accompanying documents. Throughout this process, serious national security experts of all ideological stripes have voiced strong support for the New START treaty. James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Stephen Hadley, Colin Powell and scores of others have all expressed strong support for this treaty.
Senators Chambliss and Isakson would do well to recognize that when they cast their vote for New START, they will be faced with a choice: strengthen our national security with a vote in favor of the New START Treaty, or choose to ignore the advice of our nation’s most trusted voices and expose the nation to greater risk due to loss of verification of Russian behaviors and intent. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, previously warned Senators that a rejection of this treaty would throw our nuclear policies into a “state of chaos.”
The support for New START from our military is clear. The national security benefits of New START are clear. So is the choice. Senators Chambliss and Isakson must support the New START Treaty and choose a safer Georgia and a stronger America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Major General Eaton served more than 30 years in the United States Army, including combat and post-combat assignments in Iraq, Bosnia and Somalia and command of the Army Infantry Training Center in Fort Benning, GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Georgia Forum. 8/10
Sunday, August 8, 2010
TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM
By Rev. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson
Bob Corker has defied typecasting for a freshman senator, emerging in his first few years in the U.S. Capitol as a go-to leader for getting work done across party lines. Tennesseans should urge him to continue in this vein by leading his fellow Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).
New START, which was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev this April, is presently under review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and could be sent to the Senate floor as soon as late July. The Treaty is a conservative and modest reduction in both nations’ strategic nuclear forces. It limits each side’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, a reduction of approximately 30 percent from the 2002 Moscow Treaty, and restricts deployed delivery vehicles—ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers—to 800.
Perhaps most significantly, New START will continue the verification regime that has given us intelligence on Russian forces for the past two decades. START I, which was proposed by President Reagan and signed by President George H.W. Bush, expired last December. Though both nations have agreed to continue abiding by its provisions in the interim, the need to formalize these trust-building mechanisms has led Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to urge the Senate to ratify New START “as soon as possible.”
Senator Corker has been a careful and thoughtful questioner throughout the more than 10 Senate hearings thus far on New START. He has heard a level of bipartisan support that is nearly unimaginable in the current, poisonously partisan environment of the Beltway. Treaty endorsements so far have come from top security officials representing every administration from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and James Schlesinger. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership,” citing “the security it provides to the American people.”
Equally telling is the opposition to the Treaty, which has proven shockingly weak. The voices raised against New START have been primarily those of individuals whose foremost interest is not improving national security, but scoring political points against the Obama White House. Mitt Romney, as an aspiring 2012 presidential candidate, has emerged as the most prominent national critic to date—but nuclear experts dubbed his error-riddled and embarrassingly ill-informed op-ed against New START as “flat wrong” and “shabby, misleading, and…thoroughly ignorant.”
In the meanwhile, red herrings—the Treaty’s alleged impact on American missile defense, for example—have been thoroughly refuted by those who are actually responsible for national security, like Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who testified that, “The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas.”
Yet despite New START’s overwhelming bipartisan support and substantive merit, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. The question is which direction Republican senators will go. Senator Richard Lugar, a recognized expert in nuclear arms control and the GOP’s elder statesman on foreign policy, has declared his strong support for the Treaty; Senators James Inhofe and Jim DeMint have stated their opposition. Senator Corker’s decision on New START could be a bellwether for the rest of the GOP caucus.
Let’s be candid: if this Treaty, which has the unanimous support of our military leadership, had been negotiated by a Republican president, ratification would be both expeditious and with a huge majority. This means that the sticking point is that New START is President Obama’s treaty. Unfortunately, some Senate Republicans seem to be choosing the “party of no” over the traditional axiom that “politics stops at the water’s edge”—preventing the ratification of a treaty that is so obviously in our national security interests.
Senator Corker’s conservative credentials are above reproach. But in an increasingly ideological Capitol, he faces an uphill battle to employ the commonsense pragmatism that he demonstrated as a successful businessman and mayor. Tennesseans would do well to exercise our responsibilities as active citizens and stand behind Senator Corker, letting him know we appreciate his style of leadership on behalf of our state and our nation—and that we welcome the political courage necessary to choose the greater national good over oppressive partisanship.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------New START, which was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev this April, is presently under review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and could be sent to the Senate floor as soon as late July. The Treaty is a conservative and modest reduction in both nations’ strategic nuclear forces. It limits each side’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, a reduction of approximately 30 percent from the 2002 Moscow Treaty, and restricts deployed delivery vehicles—ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers—to 800.
Perhaps most significantly, New START will continue the verification regime that has given us intelligence on Russian forces for the past two decades. START I, which was proposed by President Reagan and signed by President George H.W. Bush, expired last December. Though both nations have agreed to continue abiding by its provisions in the interim, the need to formalize these trust-building mechanisms has led Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to urge the Senate to ratify New START “as soon as possible.”
Senator Corker has been a careful and thoughtful questioner throughout the more than 10 Senate hearings thus far on New START. He has heard a level of bipartisan support that is nearly unimaginable in the current, poisonously partisan environment of the Beltway. Treaty endorsements so far have come from top security officials representing every administration from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and James Schlesinger. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership,” citing “the security it provides to the American people.”
Equally telling is the opposition to the Treaty, which has proven shockingly weak. The voices raised against New START have been primarily those of individuals whose foremost interest is not improving national security, but scoring political points against the Obama White House. Mitt Romney, as an aspiring 2012 presidential candidate, has emerged as the most prominent national critic to date—but nuclear experts dubbed his error-riddled and embarrassingly ill-informed op-ed against New START as “flat wrong” and “shabby, misleading, and…thoroughly ignorant.”
In the meanwhile, red herrings—the Treaty’s alleged impact on American missile defense, for example—have been thoroughly refuted by those who are actually responsible for national security, like Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who testified that, “The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas.”
Yet despite New START’s overwhelming bipartisan support and substantive merit, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. The question is which direction Republican senators will go. Senator Richard Lugar, a recognized expert in nuclear arms control and the GOP’s elder statesman on foreign policy, has declared his strong support for the Treaty; Senators James Inhofe and Jim DeMint have stated their opposition. Senator Corker’s decision on New START could be a bellwether for the rest of the GOP caucus.
Let’s be candid: if this Treaty, which has the unanimous support of our military leadership, had been negotiated by a Republican president, ratification would be both expeditious and with a huge majority. This means that the sticking point is that New START is President Obama’s treaty. Unfortunately, some Senate Republicans seem to be choosing the “party of no” over the traditional axiom that “politics stops at the water’s edge”—preventing the ratification of a treaty that is so obviously in our national security interests.
Senator Corker’s conservative credentials are above reproach. But in an increasingly ideological Capitol, he faces an uphill battle to employ the commonsense pragmatism that he demonstrated as a successful businessman and mayor. Tennesseans would do well to exercise our responsibilities as active citizens and stand behind Senator Corker, letting him know we appreciate his style of leadership on behalf of our state and our nation—and that we welcome the political courage necessary to choose the greater national good over oppressive partisanship.
The Rev. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson is the founding director of the Nashville-based Two Futures Project, an organization of Evangelical Christians for nuclear security.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Tennessee Editorial Forum. 7/10
Friday, July 30, 2010
AMERICAN FORUM
By John Castellaw
In April President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START), a measure designed to mutually and verifiably reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Specifically, it would reduce U.S. and Russian warheads by approximately one third and would continue and strengthen the verification regime that has allowed the inspections and surveillance that have informed U.S. intelligence about Russian nuclear forces for decades.
The treaty is now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may come before the full Senate for a vote on ratification this summer.
Over the last several months, America’s military leaders and national security experts—from both Republican and Democratic administrations—have testified before Senate committees, all with the same message: the treaty’s modest mutual reductions and strengthened verification regime improve our national security, and the Senate should ratify the treaty.
On the benefits afforded by the treaty, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was clear: “Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States.”
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, made it clear that Admiral Mullen was not alone: “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership,” he wrote.
Testimony in favor of the treaty has also come from former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger and William Perry, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger and former National Security Advisors Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley.
In fact, 30 high-level national security experts from across the political spectrum – including Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Frank Carlucci, Chuck Hagel and John Danforth – published an open letter in support of the treaty.
One of the most compelling reasons for ratifying the treaty is the enormous risk involved in failing to do so. Rejection of this treaty would amount to voluntarily giving up our decades-old capacity to keep tabs on the Russian arsenal.
As General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander, testified, “If we don't get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and … we have no insight into what they’re doing. So it’s the worst of both possible worlds.”
Some who oppose the treaty have repeatedly raised concerns that the treaty somehow limits U.S. missile defense capabilities. Again and again, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and others have assured Senators that those concerns are unfounded and that the treaty does not limit missile defense.
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, was even more emphatic, stating that, “Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program.”
Despite the remarkable bipartisan consensus in support of the treaty, its fate in the Senate is hardly assured.
Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee may well set the tone in determining whether the bipartisan support the treaty enjoys among the military leadership and national security experts is reflected in the Senate. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking member of the committee, has announced his support for the treaty and called for its prompt ratification. Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK) have announced their opposition. Those undecided are Senators Bob Corker (R-TN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), James Risch (R-ID), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).
The importance of the treaty demands a statesmanlike approach to this debate. As the vote approaches, the pressure to politicize the issue will increase. But this is an issue that should be above politics. The expert consensus is clear, and those who would disregard the facts and the advice of our nation’s military leadership in an attempt to make political hay do so at the risk of our national security.
The undecided members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee deserve recognition for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. Having weighed the issue, let us hope they, along with the rest of the Senate, decide to stand with our nation’s military leadership and the combined experience of security experts from Republican and Democratic administrations alike when it comes time to vote.
As Secretary Gates noted, “For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result - on account of the dangerous weapons it reduces, the critical defense capabilities it preserves, the strategic stability it maintains, and, above all, the security it provides to the American people.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The treaty is now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may come before the full Senate for a vote on ratification this summer.
Over the last several months, America’s military leaders and national security experts—from both Republican and Democratic administrations—have testified before Senate committees, all with the same message: the treaty’s modest mutual reductions and strengthened verification regime improve our national security, and the Senate should ratify the treaty.
On the benefits afforded by the treaty, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was clear: “Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States.”
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, made it clear that Admiral Mullen was not alone: “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership,” he wrote.
Testimony in favor of the treaty has also come from former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger and William Perry, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger and former National Security Advisors Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley.
In fact, 30 high-level national security experts from across the political spectrum – including Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Frank Carlucci, Chuck Hagel and John Danforth – published an open letter in support of the treaty.
One of the most compelling reasons for ratifying the treaty is the enormous risk involved in failing to do so. Rejection of this treaty would amount to voluntarily giving up our decades-old capacity to keep tabs on the Russian arsenal.
As General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander, testified, “If we don't get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and … we have no insight into what they’re doing. So it’s the worst of both possible worlds.”
Some who oppose the treaty have repeatedly raised concerns that the treaty somehow limits U.S. missile defense capabilities. Again and again, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and others have assured Senators that those concerns are unfounded and that the treaty does not limit missile defense.
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, was even more emphatic, stating that, “Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program.”
Despite the remarkable bipartisan consensus in support of the treaty, its fate in the Senate is hardly assured.
Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee may well set the tone in determining whether the bipartisan support the treaty enjoys among the military leadership and national security experts is reflected in the Senate. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking member of the committee, has announced his support for the treaty and called for its prompt ratification. Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK) have announced their opposition. Those undecided are Senators Bob Corker (R-TN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), James Risch (R-ID), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).
The importance of the treaty demands a statesmanlike approach to this debate. As the vote approaches, the pressure to politicize the issue will increase. But this is an issue that should be above politics. The expert consensus is clear, and those who would disregard the facts and the advice of our nation’s military leadership in an attempt to make political hay do so at the risk of our national security.
The undecided members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee deserve recognition for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. Having weighed the issue, let us hope they, along with the rest of the Senate, decide to stand with our nation’s military leadership and the combined experience of security experts from Republican and Democratic administrations alike when it comes time to vote.
As Secretary Gates noted, “For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result - on account of the dangerous weapons it reduces, the critical defense capabilities it preserves, the strategic stability it maintains, and, above all, the security it provides to the American people.”
Castellaw is a 36-year retired US Marine Corps general, now living on his family farm in Crockett County, TN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
