…will not be as restrained or as nuanced as the American Response to 9/11.
I don’t expect to see soul searching or worries about the niceties. Putin is KGB and they certainly are not going to worry about keeping the US or international press happy, and the Russian Press certainly isn’t going to call for kid gloves.
While the Chechnyan conflict started off as a political rebellion, it has been an Islamist affair for most of the last several years. The “Black Widows” took part in the infamously botched seizure of a Moscow theater in 2002, when Russian authorities gassed the hostages and terrorists in an attempt to disable them, but wound up killing many of them instead.
This will not be pretty. Nor should we expect it to be.
One of the more reasonable arguments concerning the White Houses’ missile defense move is the cost savings it entails. It sounds pretty good but it is deceptive.
First of all political capital and possibility monetary capital was spent to get the permission to put the stuff there in the first place. Now that it will not be deployed that is all now a loss.
Second of all it means if either the technology or threat changes then we would have to spend it all again, only this time we would have less credibility and it would have a higher cost in political and financial capital, in fact it might not even be in time. Sort of like the four stage strategy of diplomacy via Sir Humphrey starting around 6 min in this clip or if you just want the meat at 7:40
If your goal is to actually do nothing then it’s a great plan. If your goal is you know actual deterrence it’s not a good idea. It’s like losing money in a machine and then just putting more in again instead of getting your quarters back first.
But Datechguy you say: Aren’t these missiles actually better than the ground stuff and more flexable? It’s the arugment in the LGF thread on the subject that was offered and here is my answer verbatim:
Those things are true in the physical sense but it is a worse deterrent in a political sense. If a country is under actual threat there is little question in the mind of the potential aggressor that it will use a deterrent under it’s own control on it’s own soil.
If the deterrent is not on their own soil then the political will of the guarantor is taken into effect. Europe’s graveyards are full of casualties of the lack of political will.
That’s why US troops South Korea are a more effective deterrent then a promise to deploy troops would be. It’s also why we actually had troops in Europe instead of relying on a nuclear deterrent. Your more likely to stay in the pot if you already have money in it.
The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.
Lets cut to the Chase, Gates blather not withstanding the reason why the shipboard option is bad is because it is not actually in the country being protected so they have absolutely no control over their own defense or the decision to actually defend themselves.
Exit question: Is this the price from Russia keeping nukes out of Chavez’s hands and is this administration stupid enough to believe him? Can they learn from President Bush’s mistake concerning Vlad?
Update: Nothing on facebook yet but Conservatives for Palin has an awesome title post:
America’s New Foreign Policy – Speak Softly And Carry A Big “Kick Me” Sign……
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 