Monday, October 27, 2008

Decision 2008: National Defense

National defense is far and away the most important responsibility of the federal government. A case can even be made that it is the only reason we have a federal government, since other public responsibilities are best understood and handled at the state and local levels. And when it comes to national defense, John McCain is so much stronger than Barack Obama that there's almost no point writing about it.

McCain has always been a proponent of a strong military used intelligently to protect America and defend freedom against violent despotism. Just as important, when it comes to identifying violent despotism, McCain does so.

On the other hand, Barack Obama dwells in the mush-minded world of moral equivalence. When international acts of violence occur, such as Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, he instinctively responds by saying that both sides are to blame and by refusing to name the aggressor.

But most chillingly, Obama wants to weaken our national defenses against the rest of the world. Think I'm a paranoid fear-monger? Well, Obama himself is on video saying the following: “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.”

Like the double-talking politician that he is, he uses Clintonian adjectives in the hope that he can use them to deflect criticism — like employing the phrase "unproven missile defense systems" because he knows many voters won't bother to realize that every missile defense system is unproven until it receives the "investment" of expensive and lengthy research and development.

And consider everything else Obama says in the above quote:

He depicts the simple fact that we may use our ICBM's to respond to aggression by depicting those ICBM's as being on "hair-trigger alert."

He says he will not "weaponize space," but declines to point out that other nations, especially China, are already doing that and will most certainly continue.

He says he will "slow our development of future combat systems" and "will not develop new nuclear weapons systems" — ignoring the fact that our enemies are constantly speeding up their development of new weaponry, including new nuclear weaponry.

He says he will "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons" and "seek a global ban on the production of fissile material," but he declines to acknowledge that there is no way in hell despotic regimes will ever go along. His comment about negotiating with Russia is similar in that he seems oblivious to the fact that Russia never lives up to its end of any deal it negotiates.

Obama's proposed course of action is inherently dangerous, predictably disastrous, and completely irresponsible. And if that weren't enough, his stated goals will never be attainable so long as human beings are human beings.

Like Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb." When it comes to the most important duty any president will ever face, Barack Obama is either stupid or naive, or perhaps he really doesn't think that American ideals are worth the cost and energy required to defend them. Any one of those automatically disqualifies him from the presidency, even if he were the stronger candidate on every other issue.

1 comment:

denisermt said...

I believe it was the Bush Administration's expensive and lengthy research of WMD that falsely led us to a war with Iraq.

OBAMA 08!!!