Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts

Sunday, August 30, 2015

[COMMENTARY] Restoring American Exceptionalism

Restoring American Exceptionalism - WSJ
In 1983, as the U.S. confronted the threat posed by the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan explained America’s unique responsibility. “It is up to us in our time,” he said, “to choose, and choose wisely, between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.” It was up to us then—as it is now—because we are the exceptional nation. America has guaranteed freedom, security and peace for a larger share of humanity than any other nation in all of history. There is no other like us. There never has been.
Born of the revolutionary ideal that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” we were, first, an example to the world of freedom’s possibilities. During World War II, we became freedom’s defender, at the end of the Cold War, the world’s sole superpower. We did not seek the position. It is ours because of our ideals and our power, and the power of our ideals. As British historian Andrew Roberts has observed, “In the debate over whether America was born great, achieved greatness or had greatness thrust upon her, the only possible conclusion must be: all three.”
No other nation, international body or “community of nations” can do what we do. It isn’t just our involvement in world events that has been essential for the triumph of freedom. It is our leadership. For the better part of a century, security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political and diplomatic might. For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered.
Since Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed us the “Arsenal of Democracy” in 1940, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have understood the indispensable nature of American power. Presidents from Truman to Nixon, from Kennedy to Reagan, knew that America’s strength had to be safeguarded, her supremacy maintained. In the 1940s American leadership was essential to victory in World War II, and the liberation of millions from the grip of fascism. In the Cold War American leadership guaranteed the survival of freedom, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism. In this century it will be essential for the defeat of militant Islam.
Yet despite the explosive spread of terrorist ideology and organizations, the establishment of an Islamic State caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and increasing threats from Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, President Obama has departed from this 75-year, largely bipartisan tradition of ensuring America’s pre-eminence and strength.
He has abandoned Iraq, leaving a vacuum that is being tragically and ominously filled by our enemies. He is on course to forsake Afghanistan as well.
He has made dangerous cuts to America’s military. Combined with the sequestration mandated in the Budget Control Act of 2011, these cuts have, according to former Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, left the Army as unready as it has been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert has testified that “naval readiness is at its lowest point in many years.” According to Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh, the current aircraft fleet is “now the smallest and oldest in the history of our service.”
For seven decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood the importance of ensuring the supremacy of America’s nuclear arsenal. President Obama seems not to. He has advocated cutting our nuclear force in the naïve hope that this will persuade rogue regimes to do the same. He has imposed limits on our ability to modernize and maintain nuclear weapons. He has reduced the nation’s missile-defense capabilities.
He says that he is committed to preventing nuclear proliferation. For more than 45 years, presidents of both parties have recognized that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is vital in this effort. Signed by 190 countries, including Iran, the NPT has been arguably the single most effective multilateral arms-control agreement in history. President Obama stands ready to gut it. Among the many dangerous deficiencies in his nuclear deal with Iran is the irreversible damage it will do to the international nonproliferation regime contained in the NPT.
Allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and agreeing to the removal of all restraints on their nuclear program in a few short years virtually guarantees that they will become a nuclear-weapons state, thus undermining the fundamental agreement at the heart of the NPT. President Obama is unraveling this international structure as part of an agreement that provides a pathway for the world’s worst state-sponsor of terror to acquire nuclear weapons.
Nearly everything the president has told us about his Iranian agreement is false. He has said it will prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it will actually facilitate and legitimize an Iranian nuclear arsenal. He has said this deal will stop nuclear proliferation, but it will actually accelerate it, as nations across the Middle East work to acquire their own weapons in response to America’s unwillingness to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
President Obama told us he would never accept a deal based on trust. Members of his administration, including his secretary of energy and deputy national-security adviser, said the nuclear deal would be verifiable with “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Instead, the Obama deal provides the Iranians with months to delay inspections and fails to address past clandestine work at military sites. Inspections at these sites are covered in secret deals, which is historic, though not in the way the president claims. Under the reported provisions of the secret deals, the Iranians get to inspect themselves for these past infractions. Inevitably these provisions will be cited by the Iranians as a precedent when they are caught cheating in the future.
The president has tried to sell this bad deal by claiming that there is no alternative, save war. In fact, this agreement makes war more, not less, likely. In addition to accelerating the spread of nuclear weapons across the Middle East, it will provide the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which even the Obama administration admits likely will be used to fund terror. The deal also removes restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program; lifts the ban on conventional weapons sales; and lifts sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, on the Quds Force, and on Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. Under Mr. Soleimani’s leadership, the Quds Force sows violence and supports terror across the Middle East and has been responsible for the deaths of American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A vote for the Obama nuclear deal is not a vote for peace or security. It is a vote for an agreement that facilitates Tehran’s deadly objectives with potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States and our allies.
The Obama nuclear agreement with Iran is tragically reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s Munich agreement in 1938. Each was negotiated from a position of weakness by a leader willing to concede nearly everything to appease an ideological dictator. Hitler got Czechoslovakia. The mullahs in Tehran get billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear arsenal. Munich led to World War II. The Obama agreement will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East and, more than likely, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The U.S. Congress should reject this deal and reimpose the sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place. It is possible to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, but only if the U.S. negotiates from a position of strength, refuses to concede fundamental points and recognizes that the use of military force will be required if diplomacy fails to convince Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.
As America faces a world of rising security threats, we must resolve to take action and shouldn’t lose hope. Just as one president has left a path of destruction in his wake, one president can rescue us. The right person in the Oval Office can restore America’s strength and alliances, defeat our enemies, and keep us safe. It won’t be easy. There is a path forward, but there are difficult decisions to be made and very little time.
We are living in what columnist Charles Krauthammer has called “a hinge point of history.” It will take a president equal to this moment to lead us through. America needs a president who recognizes that everything the nation must do requires having a U.S. military with capabilities that are second to none—on land, in the air, at sea, in space and in cyberspace. The peace and security of the world and the survival of our freedom depend on it. We must choose wisely.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Obama is no profile in courage: James Robbins

635743847567813565-BX146-5600-9

President Obama visited American University today to deliver what was billed as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. The topic was the proposed nuclear deal with Iran that is currently under consideration by the Congress. The venue was significant; Obama invoked history, namely President John F. Kennedy’s June 10, 1963 commencement speech in which he announced that the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom would begin formal negotiations seeking a limited nuclear test ban. But Kennedy’s diplomatic success 52 years ago only underscores Obama’s poor showing in selling his nuclear deal with Iran.
Kennedy sought a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing, which both sides had undertaken extensively and which created nuclear fallout problems. He negotiated the test ban as a formal treaty, and presented it to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution dictates. It sailed through in September 1963 by a vote of 80 to 19 with strong bipartisan support. By contrast, the Obama administration never sought to do the hard work of negotiating and ratifying a formal treaty with Iran, and the proposed pact faces strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. President Obama invoked the later SALT agreements with the Soviet Union, but his proposed Iran deal has lowerpublic approval than the SALT II treaty did before Jimmy Carter withdrew it from the Senate in 1980.(
President Kennedy's speech was publicly addressing Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev (who notably said “We will bury you”) in an attempt to get him to the negotiating table. President Obama's speech today targeted a small group of undecided members of his own political party who could mean the difference between his deal being rejected with a veto proof majority, or simply being rejected.
Kennedy was also not afraid to continue his pointed criticism of Soviet communism even while he sought détente. Two weeks after the American University address, Kennedy delivered his more famous, more combative “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. “There are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists,” Kennedy said. “Let them come to Berlin.” Kennedy’s muscular tone prompted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remark during his own speech in East Berlin two days later that "one would think that the speeches were made by two different Presidents." Obama made passing reference to Iran’s Islamic regime being repressive, but it hardly amounted to the soaring indictment of communism President Kennedy made in Berlin.
Kennedy was concerned that the Soviet Union might possibly start a senseless conflict, but Obama believes that his domestic political opponents are the ones threatening to start a senseless conflict. He characterized his deal as a peace agreement, because there is “no other option” than a U.S.-initiated war — even though no American leaders are advocating an immediate attack.
Obama is manufacturing a crisis that his pact does not solve. The agreement does not address Iran’s expansionist aims, its support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program or grim human rights record. Even if the proposed deal worked, which is doubtful, it would amount to a speed bump for Iran’s nuclear program that will simultaneously reward Tehran with tens of billions of dollars to invigorate its terror networks and missile programs.
President Obama quoted Kennedy saying that “the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war.” But Obama's argument that war is the only alternative is what is creating drama. There are many better alternatives to his Iran pact that do not involve armed conflict. The stakes are much lower than they were in 1963. This is not the height of the Cold War. Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Barack Obama, is no John F. Kennedy.
James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA TODAY and is the author of The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Charlie Daniels: ‘America Needs a Leader’ Like Ronald Reagan By Charlie Daniels

Remember back in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when the Berlin Wall was coming down and all the talk about perestroika and glasnost were making the rounds, when Gorbachev came to power and was being viewed as the great Russian reformer who would bring about the long-awaited change that would bring the deprived population into prosperity and twenty-first century convenience, when scores of MiG fighter jets were mothballed at obscure Balkan air bases and the Russian leadership was making overtures about better relations and stronger ties with the west?
Remember when western leaders were acting as if the long east-west struggle between communism and capitalism had run its course and that the awful Mutual Assured Destruction policies were a thing of the past? Back when the KGB was disbanded – it was actually never disbanded – it just changed its name and never lost its intimidating power.
Remember when the old Soviet Union started to crumble, when the two Germanys were reunited and the eastern Europeans found themselves on their own for the first time since before the second world war, when the west was breathing an excited sigh of relief, thinking that, at last, Russia had seen the error of their repressive ways and were ready to become a true democracy? It was right then that I said, “This ain't real, and the Russians are not our friends” – the government that is, not the people.
The truth of the matter is that under Ronald Reagan's relentless military buildup, Russia's fevered attempt to keep up had finally caught up with them. The Soviet Union was broke, they couldn't enter the arena of supersonic war planes, “Star Wars” missile shields and all the technologic wonders that America was putting on the battle lines.
They were simply outspent, outgunned and outmaneuvered, left with little else but a very bleak future of ever-increasing military spending, which took the “guns or butter” proposition to an untenable level.
Russia's nuclear system was old and unproven. Its borders were long and expensive to patrol. The levels of secret police it took to control the restless populations were unsustainable. The war in Afghanistan, and the fact that they weren't being regularly paid, had drained the morale of the Russian army.
Their crops regularly failed, and after decades of the "one size fits all" Communist doctrine, the people had become unproductive and restive.     
So, Russia made their overtures and bided their time, waiting for the Western World to be lulled to sleep in their desperate quest for "peace in our day." They waited for the election of a leader of the free world whose idealism outweighed his good sense, someone who was unwilling to accept, that in most of the world, the only thing they respect is power and a leader who is willing to use it should it become necessary.
From 1987 to the present day, we have come from "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," to (tell Vladimir) “After my election, I have more flexibility.”
The Russian bear has come out of its long hibernation and is back in the business of empire building. The Crimea has fallen, and the Ukraine is just a matter of time. America and the west has lost its power to intimidate, and left to his own devices, it looks as if Obama will eventually strip it of its ability to be the greatest fighting force the world has ever known.
Russia will become more belligerent as time goes by, vying for influence in the Middle East and gobbling up the Balkans, reestablishing the parts of the old Soviet Union they consider to be profitable for them.
America has left a long trail of unfinished wars, broken promises, imaginary red lines and the likes in the decades since Reagan transformed the American military from an organization that couldn't even mount an operation to rescue the Iranian hostages into the best of the best.
America needs a leader, not a poll follower, an ideologue or someone naive enough to believe that if you'll be nice to the bad guys, they'll be nice to you. America needs a leader with the guts to stand by an ally and let the world know it, even in uncertain times.
America needs a leader who wants to preserve, not circumvent, the constitution. She needs a leader who has respect for the rights of the states and will leave them to a reasonable amount of self-governance, a leader who knows when to hold ‘em and knows when to fold ‘em. She needs a leader who recognizes political correctness for the sham it is and refuses to hide behind it.
Is such a person out there?
I truly don't know, but I pray to my God that there is, that they will come forth, and with His guidance, lead this nation out of the spiritual, fiscal and dangerous morass we find ourselves in. America needs a uniter, someone who would never sink to dividing the races for political purposes, someone who will bring back our military superiority, destroy ISIS by whatever means necessary and make this nation proud to go back to work.
Tall order?
Sure is.
Can it be done?
It’s happened before.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
Charlie Daniels is a legendary American singer, song writer, guitarist, and fiddler famous for his contributions to country and southern rock music. Daniels has been active as a singer since the early 1950s. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry on January 24, 2008.


Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks to build successor to SR-71 Blackbird

SR-72 Son of Blackbird.jpgA new hypersonic spy plane is coming from the company that helped invent the technology -- and this one will fly six times the speed of sound.
Dubbed the SR-72, or Son of Blackbird, the new unmanned spy plane is under development at Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works division, where some of the company’s most advanced projects have been developed. It will be the successor to the famous SR-71, which the U.S. Air Force operated for decades but retired almost 20 years ago.
Lockheed built the Blackbird in the early 60s after Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane was hit by surface-to-air missiles over the Soviet Union, a Cold War crisis that revealed the real need for faster planes and better spy capabilities. Built and tested at Groom Lake in Nevada -- right around the corner from Area 51 -- the Blackbird was designed to fly far faster than anything else around, maintaining speeds in excess of 2,000 mph.
'Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location.'
- Brad Leland, Lockheed Martin program manager for hypersonics
The SR-71 was flown from New York to London in less than two hours in 1976 by U.S. Air Force crews, reaching speeds exceeding Mach 3 and setting world records that have held up for nearly four decades.
But Son of Blackbird? The SR-72 should make its aging ancestor look like a Sunday driver out taking in the fall foliage.
“Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour,” said Brad Leland, Lockheed Martin program manager for hypersonics. “Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a game-changer in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today.”

Monday, September 9, 2013

Collapse of American Influence Recalls Disintegration of Soviet Union, Fall of France

Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and prior to that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States.

The Soviet Union crumbled jurisdictionally: In 1990-1991, one country became the 16 formerly constituent republics of that country, and except perhaps for Belarus, none of them show much disposition to return to the Russian fold into which they had been gathered, almost always by brute force, over the previous 300 years.

The cataclysmic decline of France, of course, was the result of being overrun by Nazi Germany in 1940. And while it took until the return of de Gaulle in 1958 and the establishment of the Fifth Republic with durable governments and a serious currency, and the end of the Algerian War in 1962, and the addition of some other cubits to France’s stature, the largest step in its resurrection was accomplished by the Allied armies sweeping the Germans out of France in 1944.

What we are witnessing now in the United States, by contrast, is just the backwash of inept policy-making in Washington, and nothing that could not eventually be put right. But for this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus: a miraculous revolution in the condition of an individual (President Obama), and a comparable metamorphosis (or a comprehensive replacement) of the astonishingly implausible claque around him.


Saturday, October 20, 2012

Third debate could be dated before it’s over


President Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney will meet for the third and final presidential debate Monday night to discuss foreign policy. It is a broad topic that was sidelined in the first debate on domestic issues and engendered only one question at the candidate's subsequent tete-a-tete, a town-hall meeting.
At last, we will hear the candidates' uninterrupted views on America's security. The debate's topics have already been disclosed by moderator Bob Schieffer. They include the usual cast of ominous characters: the long war in Afghanistan, the red lines of Iran and Israel, the rising power of China, and the changing Middle East. Another query, on ”America's role in the world,” could be a softball or a snoozer, but might also be quite revealing.
Nonetheless, the night may not be greeted with the rapt attention that attended the other two. The foreign policy debate is fighting an uphill battle for relevance not only because of the condition of our economy, the fight over our taxes, and the looming fiscal cliff. It is because, for those who remember other recent debates on international affairs, the gap between what was asked and what the winning candidate actually faced as president has been wide.
A candidate's policy towards Iran, Afghanistan, or China will have to share center stage with the unpredicted, the incidental, and the utterly dramatic once he becomes president or wins a second term. The stylized theatrics of a debate stand in sharp contrast to the randomness of the world.
”I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defense systems or support some freeze when they 1 / 8the Soviet Union 3 / 8 have superiority. I'm not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment,” Vice President George H. W. Bush stated on Sep. 25, 1988, when he faced Governor Michael Dukakis. The jury would soon rule; the Berlin Wall fell just over a year later. Eastern Europeans realized they were being governed by a spent ideology and weak captor. The Soviet empire would dissolve by the end of Bush's presidency. Strategic defense debates were replaced by diplomatic challenges in a new, open Europe.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/20/4351191/third-debate-could-be-dated-before.html#storylink=cpy

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Author: ‘Obama Would Have Trouble Getting A Security Clearance For An Entry-Level Government Job’


Author Paul Kengor wants you to know just how radical Frank Marshal Davis — a man many consider to have been a mentor to President Barack Obama during his teenage years — was.
“Obama’s mentor was considered so radical, and such a potential pro-Soviet threat, that the federal government placed him on the Security Index,” Kengor told The Daily Caller in an interview about his new book on Davis, simply titled “The Communist.”
“That meant that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Frank Marshall Davis could be placed under immediate arrest. Think about that. Obama had that sort of influence. And The Washington Post will focus on whether Mitt Romney was bullying in high school? With the kind of influence that Obama had, Obama would have trouble getting a security clearance for an entry-level government job.”
Obama refers to Davis in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” simply as “Frank” and never elaborates on his radical history. Kengor believes this is because Obama wanted to avoid the political liability of being associated with Davis’ politics. But if Obama was concerned about protecting his future political prospects while writing his memoir, why would he include details of his drug use?
Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading

Popular Posts