Tag Archives: New START

Job #1 for Congress

By all accounts, the 112th Congress is going to be consumed with cutting government spending and creating jobs.  This agenda reflects the election campaign of 2010 in which matters of national security featured not at all. 

As in the past, however, when the nation and its leaders indulge in the temptation to focus exclusively on domestic matters and ignore present – and growing – dangers, there are usually nasty surprises in store.  Such surprises frequently compel the federal government to give urgent attention to its constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defense," often at the expense of fiscal discipline and other priorities.

One need not look too hard to discern the sorts of threats that could well preoccupy official Washington in the months ahead.  For example, the Obama administration’s much-ballyhooed "reset" in relations with Russia is becoming ever more one-sided as Vladimir Putin cracks down at home and sells dangerous arms to, and otherwise provides diplomatic protection for, the world’s most dangerous regimes.  And Communist China is operationalizing its ability to engage in what its military planners have described as "unrestricted warfare" – a strategy for using every instrument of power, from traditional and unconventional weaponry to financial attacks and terrorism – to decisively defeat the United States.

Other sources of what would be, at best, instability, and, at worst, war include: a succession crisis in a bankrupt and nuclear-armed North Korea; the prospect of another nuclear-armed nation, Pakistan, becoming a failed state; the Palestinians obtaining international recognition – including quite possibly from President Obama – for their unilaterally declared statehood; meltdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan catalyzed by the U.S. withdrawal from each; and one-time allies in the Far East, Mideast and Latin America adapting to perceived new realities of waning American power and protection.  They may manifest this by capitulating to emerging regional hegemons or by arming themselves to the teeth, in some cases at least with nuclear arms.  Either way, our interests will likely suffer.

Two national security threats are particularly likely to demand congressional attention in the New Year: 

First, Iran has reportedly reached an agreement with Venezuela to deploy ballistic missiles on Venezuelan territory.  Initially, these Scud and Shahab 3 missiles may not be able to reach the continental United States, unless employed in a sea-launched mode (a capability the Iranians have demonstrated) and brought closer to our shores aboard ships equipped for that purpose.  Certainly, if this deployment goes forward unchallenged – and so far, President Obama has taken no public steps to prevent it – over time, longer-range missiles will surely migrate to our hemisphere, as well.

Such a prospect is all the more alarming insofar as the Senate has just approved a New START Treaty that the Russians say they will remain party to only as long as the United States refrains from making "any quantitative or qualitative improvements" in our missile defenses.  Since we have no defenses in place at the moment to defend against threats emanating from the south, Congress will have to reckon with whether to provide for the common defense come what may, or allow Moscow to veto protection for the American people.

Second, the effort to impose or otherwise insinuate into this country the totalitarian, supremacist program the authorities of Islam call "shariah" is likely to intensify in 2011.  Our government remains unwilling to recognize this wellspring of jihadist terrorism and insists on legitimating and empowering organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  The latter practice is unconscionable since the MB absolutely shares the same goal as violent groups like al Qaeda, even though, for the moment at least, it chooses in the West use more stealthy forms of jihad to pursue shariah’s worldwide triumph under a caliphate. 

As a new book entitled Shariah: The Threat to America and published in November by the Center for Security Policy describes, such governmental behavior makes it is impossible to defeat such enemies.  If allowed to persist, there will not only be more deadly attacks perpetrated in this country in the name of Islam.  There will also be further, serious erosion of our Constitution and freedoms as serial accommodations are made to shariah’s adherents and their determination to create here, as in Britain, a parallel system of laws.

The good news is that Rep. Pete King (R-NY) the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee has announced his intention to hold hearings addressing the nature of the threat of what he calls "radical Islam."  He wants to end the "political correctness" that has obscured our understanding of and hamstrung our response to this threat.  Congressman King’s efforts may prove to be among the most important of the 112th Congress and a model for oversight and corrective measures by its intelligence, foreign affairs and armed services committees.

History suggests that, if Congress properly attends to these and related matters, it will have time and resources to address other domestic priorities.  If legislators fail to do their part to identify and stave off such dangers, though, they may find their plans for budget cutting and the like go by the board, as they have to refocus big time on Job #1: providing for the common defense.

 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

START the damage control

Last week’s rushed vote on New START in the lame-duck session of the Senate represented that body’s abandonment of its constitutional obligations to provide to “advise and consent” on treaties, despite the best efforts Sen. Jon Kyl and some of his colleagues to prevent the Senate from being reduced to such a “rubber stamp”. The vote cannot be undone, but the damage can be mitigated if our leadership exercises the political will to do so.

START has serious defects, which did not receive adequate consideration in the Senate. Just some of those defects include: 1) giving Russia a veto over U.S. missile defense; 2) failing to address tactical nuclear weapons, on which Russia is thought to outnumber the U.S. by a ratio of 10-1, according to the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission; 3) providing flawed “counting rules” that allow Russia easily to bust through the nominal 1,550 ceiling on strategic nuclear warheads; and 4) failing to provide adequate verification measures to ensure that Russia does not cheat, which its track record suggests is a strong possibility.

The one upside to the New START treaty is that it gives us a way out. Article 14, paragraph 3 reads: “Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.”

Supporters of this treaty will no doubt argue that the bar for “extraordinary events” meriting our withdrawal from New START should be set high, lest we jeopardize our “reset” with Russia, the results of which have so far been lackluster, to say the very least. Truly responsible national security leaders, however, should act now to define “extraordinary events” in a way that allows us to withdraw from New START before it is too late. The reality, of course, is that such events are already unfolding, and every day that passes without our withdrawal from New START leaves us and our allies more vulnerable to the very threats that New START proponents claim this treaty will help prevent.

According to diplomatic cables, Iran has apparently obtained advanced missiles from North Korea with the range to strike Western Europe. Those same cables have indicated that missile and perhaps nuclear cooperation between Iran and North Korea was deeper than previously thought. Meanwhile, Russia has shown no signs of backing down from its decision to assist with the functioning of Iran’s only nuclear power plant, at Bushehr.

    • North Korea recently has undertaken several acts of aggression towards South Korea, including artillery attacks, and recently disclosed to a visiting American scientist that it is constructing a previously covert uranium enrichment facility – the sophistication of which apparently “stunned” the scientist, who formerly served as director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    • German daily Die Welt reported recently that Iran and Venezuela are cooperating to place Iranian missiles on Venezuelan soil, and to establish a military base to be manned jointly by Iranian and Venezuelan missile officers.

Surely these are “extraordinary events” that should prompt a recalculation of whether now is the time to allow Russia to hamstring our missile defenses and limit the capabilities of our arsenal in other critical ways.

It is also worth noting that the United States has withdrawn from an arms control agreement with Russia once before. In 2001, President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia, precisely because it adversely affected our ability to deploy missile defenses in alignment with our national interests. The world did not end, and was arguably made safer – until last week’s vote.

We were careless going into START. We should not be so careless as to remain in this arrangement when circumstances clearly warrant our withdrawal – and we need our leaders to say so.

The denuclearizers dangerous ambitions

Hold on to your hat.  No sooner had the Senate finished approving the so-called New START Treaty by the closest margin of any bilateral arms control agreement with Moscow than the accord’s principal architect served notice of her ambitious plans for further denuclearizing the United States.  Unfortunately, the disarmament agenda Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller is helping President Obama pursue will make the world more dangerous, not safer for America and its interests.

As with Mr. Obama, who reportedly first espoused the idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons while a radical undergraduate at Columbia, Ms. Gottemoeller is no newcomer to the idea of "global zero."  In the 1990s, she even lent her name to a report recommending that the United States engage in nuclear disarmament unilaterally, if necessary.  During the Clinton administration, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen declined to give her a top Pentagon post in the face of intense controversy about her views.  She subsequently secured a consolation prize in the form of a succession of senior positions in the Department of Energy. 

Last year, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entrusted Rose Gottemoeller with responsibility for negotiating the so-called "New START" Treaty with the Russians.  Their shared determination to secure that accord no matter what led to a succession of concessions that made the final product lopsidedly advantageous to the Kremlin. A desire to obscure that reality doubtless contributed to the administration’s refusal to share with the U.S. Senate the record of the New START negotiations – which, in turn, contributed to the uninformed nature of the abbreviated debate and vote for the treaty during the just-concluded lame-duck session.

Next up on Secretary Gottemoeller’s agenda are the following, among other, problematic initiatives:

  • The Senate’s urgent reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  A majority of Senators rejected that accord in 1999 on the grounds that it is unverifiable and inconsistent with the maintenance of a safe, secure and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent.  Both defects persist today.
  • Further and still-more problematic cuts in U.S. and Russian strategic forces.  Such reductions would likely preclude the maintenance of the sort of balanced deterrent posture based on a "Triad" of land- and sea-based missiles and long-range bombers that the United States has correctly deemed necessary for decades – and that may be needed more than ever in the future.
  • A treaty on so-called "tactical" nuclear forces.  A clear defect of New START was that it left Moscow with a ten-to-one advantage in such weapons, whose destructive power is often greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Even if the Kremlin dropped its historic opposition to limiting these arms in a new accord, verification would be impossible as a practical matter and the price high in terms of further reducing the "nuclear umbrella" U.S. tactical nukes provide our allies.

We know from reporting by the Washington Times’ Bill Gertz that Ms.  Gottemoeller and her boss, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, are beavering away at  negotiations with Russia that would add to the already ominous constraints New START will impose on U.S. missile defenses.  Having largely kept the Senate in the dark about these talks, it remains to be seen if the Obama administration will be willing to submit whatever they produce to the Senate for its advice and consent, or use the Bilateral Consultative Commission the new treaty establishes to circumvent legislators altogether.

Unfortunately, that uncertainty is only increased by the way the Senate conducted the "debate" on New START.  Despite the best efforts of critics led by Republican Whip Jon Kyl, the Senate’s truncated lame-duck deliberations were, by and large, superficial and uninformed.  All too often, testimonials from former officials substituted for due-diligence. Binding remedies to the treaty’s defects were blocked in favor of cosmetic, and surely fleeting, understandings with Team Obama.

In the end, however, the size of the vote – 71-26 with 13 Republicans siding with the majority – obscured a reality that Ms. Gottemoeller and her colleagues would do well to bear in mind.  New START would likely not have been approved next year. Eleven of the incoming GOP freshmen senators asked the leadership not to deny them a chance to consider and vote on this accord.  Between those who are replacing Democrats who voted for New START and those taking the seats of Republicans who did so, it appears that the next Senate will be able to block further, reckless denuclearization initiatives.

That prospect looms particularly large insofar as the new membership in the Senate and the new Republican management in the House of Representatives are going to have to reckon with powerful reasons to proceed on such an agenda with extreme caution.  These include: the un-reset hostility of Vladimir Putin Kremlin; the rising power and increasing aggressiveness of Communist China; the imminent nuclear weapons capability of Iran together with the proliferation cascade it is setting in train; and Iran’s basing of ballistic missiles in Venezuela.

Time will tell how damaging the denuclearizers’ efforts to date will be. Before more harm is done, though, it behooves the Congress as a whole – and most especially the new chairmen and women of House committees responsible for the implementation of treaties (even if they are not party to their approval) – to serve notice on Mr. Obama, Ms. Gottemoeller and those who share their vision of a denuclearized America and world:  Not so fast.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Just Say NO to New START

The 111th Congress has been discredited by its arrogant disregard for the public and repudiated at the polls. President Obama and his allies in the Senate are, nonetheless, trying to use the lame duck session to get a "Zombie Senate" to foist on the American people right before Christmas a dangerous "New START" nuclear arms treaty with Russia.  There are compelling reasons why the handful of Republican Senators who will decide whether this treaty is approved in its present form – under artificially constrained circumstances that allow minimal opportunity for informed debate – should just say "No."

Some of the most compelling include:

The treaty would leave the Russians with thousands more nuclear weapons than the United States when their ten-to-one advantage in "tactical" arms is factored in.  Moreover, the Kremlin’s tactical weapons are mostly modern. Ours are, on average, over thirty-years old; some actually rely on vacuum tubes.  Theirs are deployed forward near our allies and, in some cases, are being moved still closer in order to intimidate America’s friends. Meanwhile, our tactical bombs, artillery shells, etc. are no longer deployed aboard Navy ships and many of them are kept in the United States, and therefore are of limited, if any, deterrent value. 

 

 

What is more, Russian doctrine holds that such weapons are useable and probably decisive in warfighting.  Moscow’s large arsenal of tactical nukes will be even more of a threat if sharp cuts are made in the "nuclear umbrella" historically provided to our friends by our strategic deterrent.  Does anyone think this will make the world safer and strengthen America security?

New START shrinks the U.S. deterrent at a time when the threat from dangerous countries is growing, unconstrained by the treaty.  China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar and Venezuela are among those increasingly hostile nations who have obtained nuclear weapons or are working to get them.  This list may shortly include others who have, until now, been American allies but may feel, under the circumstances, obliged "go nuclear," as well.  If we are seen as less able (or willing) to protect them with our deterrent, the world is likely to have a lot more nuclear weapons, not fewer of them (let alone be rid of them, as Mr. Obama hopes) and surely be a lot more dangerous for the United States.

New START will allow the Russians to have a say – and what amounts to a veto – over America’s defenses against missile attack.   The Russians have said they will withdraw from the treaty if we improve the quantity or quality of our very limited anti-missile capabilities.   That threat will be more than enough to dissuade an Obama administration that has already cut, slowed and refused to deploy U.S. anti-missile programs. 

Such an arrangement is especially crazy since other dangerous countries that are not parties to New START are building up their ability to attack us and our allies with ballistic missiles (see above).  For example, Iran will soon have a base for such missiles in Venezuela – a new "Cuban Missile Crisis" in the making.  Why should Moscow be able to decide whether we can protect the American people from those missiles?

Russian compliance with New START cannot be properly verified.  This is a particular problem because the Kremlin has cheated on every arms control treaty it has ever signed.  Incredibly, New START supporters say that, without this treaty, we won’t be able to monitor what the Russians are doing.  In fact, since the treaty provides quite limited verification arrangements, we will only be able to monitor what Moscow wants us to monitor. You can bet that cheating will take place in the future in Russia, but it will probably occur in the countless places where we are not allowed to conduct inspections.

Under the kleptocratic Vladimir Putin, the Russian government is not our friend, let alone a reliable partner.  The claim that New START is necessary to "reset" relations is misleading, and potentially dangerously so.  In fact, Putin and his ruling clique are deeply hostile to America.  He is continuing to arm, protect and otherwise embolden our enemies around the world.  For example, Russia is making nuclear weapons-relevant know-how and technology available to the likes of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. And it is continuing to proliferate ballistic missile, advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, submarines, tanks, highly capable fighter planes and immense quantities of AK-47 automatic rifles – without regard for the danger they will pose in the Middle East, Far East and even Latin America.

As a result, the United States, its allies and interests are at greater risk by the day. New START would actually reward the Kremlin for such behavior, rather than end it.

Action on the treaty to date has shown that the Senate’s political equivalent of the "living dead" and other members of the 111th Congress cannot address, let alone fix, these problems in the few days left in the lame-duck session.  That is precisely why President Obama is insisting that it vote on New START before year’s end.

There is actually no compelling reason why the Senate should vote on New START under these circumstances – and plenty of reasons why it should not.  If President Obama insists on Senators approving this defective treaty without sufficient time and information to debate and assess – let alone actually fix – its problems, at least 34 of them should firmly just say "No."

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Team Reagan vs. the establishment

The looming fight over President Obama’s so-called New START disarmament treaty with Russia seems to be coming down to one fundamental question:  Would Ronald Reagan approve?  On the answer may ride nothing less than the reelection prospects of a handful of Senators who will decide the fate of this accord if Team Obama succeeds in forcing it to a vote in the last days of the current lame-duck session.

Consequently, Mr. Obama’s administration has been moving heaven and earth to demonstrate that his treaty is right out of his predecessor’s play book.  Toward that end he has enlisted a number of individuals who held prominent positions during the Reagan presidency. These include darlings of the Establishment like George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell and George H.W. Bush.  They oblige by selectively harkening back to negotiations Mr. Reagan held with the Soviet Union, some of which resulted late in his presidency in arms reduction treaties.

In recent days, however, the real Reaganauts on national security – the ones that supported the President in developing and executing his strategy for destroying the Soviet Union and that still practice his philosophy of "peace through strength" – have entered the fray.  For example, in an important op.ed. article in the Wall Street Journal on December 2, two of Ronald Reagan’s most influential advisors, former Counselor to the President and Attorney General Edwin Meese and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, explained why their boss would not have endorsed New START.

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Then, on Monday, a Capitol Hill press conference was the vehicle for the release of a powerful joint letter opposing the New START Treaty. It was sent to the Senate leadership by Mr. Reagan’s former National Security Advisor William Clark, General Meese and some thirty officials from Reagan and subsequent presidencies.

The signatories warned that, in addition to the aforementioned problems, New START would leave the United States with far fewer nuclear weapons than the Russians would have, given the latter’s immense arsenal of "tactical" nuclear arms.  This disparity can only exacerbate New START’s negative strategic repercussions at a time when the Kremlin is trying to intimidate U.S. allies by moving such weapons closer to their nations.

Such a dynamic is all the more worrying at a moment when President Obama is relentlessly pursuing global denuclearization by disarming the one country he can – ours. That is the absolutely predictable effect of his refusal to take all the steps necessary to preserve America’s nuclear arsenal.  While some insist that this agenda is vintage Reagan, the late president’s advisors observed that Mr. Obama’s program sets the stage for "the continued obsolescence and atrophying of our arsenal.  No other nuclear power is engaged in such behavior.  And, given our global security responsibilities and the growing dangers from various quarters, neither should we."

Statements from Reaganesque leaders serving today in the Senate and House underscored deep concerns on both sides of Capitol Hill about the decidedly unReagan-like idea of acting on so important, to say nothing of so problematic, an international agreement in a truncated, lame-duck session.  Senators Jon Kyl, Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe joined Reps. Tom Price, the incoming chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and Trent Franks of the House Armed Services Committee, in opposing such a step.

Senior members of that committee, led by its next chairman, Howard "Buck" McKeon, have decried the fact that – while the House does not have the Senate’s unique role in treaty-making – they are being denied the information and time to perform due-diligence associated with a responsibility they do have, namely for implementation of any ratified accord.

The press conference also featured inputs from three men reported to be considering presidential bids: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Senator Rick Santorum and former UN Ambassador John Bolton.  Their strong opposition to the New START Treaty is mirrored by other prospective candidates polled recently by National Review.  As Mr. Gingrich put it in a letter to Senators:

I.. .urge all Senators to oppose the New START treaty until the House has been able to hold the deliberations that incoming Chairman McKeon has called for, until the Senate is granted full access to the treaty’s negotiating history, until New START codifies America’s right to develop our missile defense systems without limitation within the treaty text itself, and until the Senate has been able to consider and vote on all other serious and substantive amendments that are offered…. Doing so will send a much-needed message of strength and resolve to both friends and adversaries.

In short, the message should be particularly clear to Senators Olympia Snowe, Roger Wicker, Bob Corker, Scott Brown, Jim Webb and Ben Nelson who are up for reelection in 2012:  Those who believe the United States must practice the authentic Reagan philosophy of "peace through strength" will accept no substitutes.  Pretending to follow in his footsteps while voting to weaken America and embolden our enemies in a lame-duck session will be remembered and punished at the polls by constituents who expect Senators to do their constitutional duties, by rigorously vetting treaties and providing for the common defense.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

National leaders join forces to oppose Obama demand that Senate rubber stamp New START in lame duck session

A formidable array of current and former leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives, together with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, came together Monday, December 13 to oppose President Obama’s New START Treaty and his insistence that it be approved at once.  In a Capitol Hill press conference, these prominent political figures and veteran national security professionals demonstrated the breadth of opposition to the New START Treaty.  They also advanced arguments why it must not be considered precipitously – the only possible outcome if it is taken up in the remaining few days of the lame-duck session.

Among the serving and past Senators and Members of Congress who participated in person and/or used the occasion to issue statements were: Arizona Senator JON KYL, South Caroline Senator JIM DeMINT, former House Speaker NEWT GINGRICH, former Pennsylvania Senator RICK SANTORUM, and Georgia Representative TOM PRICE and Arizona Congressman TRENT FRANKS. 

Also speaking were several of the more than two-dozen authors of a joint letter to Senators Reid and McConnell (reproduced below).  Many of these signatories formerly  served in senior positions under President Reagan.  They strongly disagree with President Obama’s insistence that the New START Treaty reflects Ronald Reagan’s approach to arms control.
  
Participants addressed the reasons why the Senate must take the time necessary both to recognize New START’s myriad, serious defects and to ensure that they are corrected before it advises and consenting to this accord include: former UN Ambassador JOHN BOLTON; former Reagan arms control negotiator HENRY COOPER; former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance PAULA DeSUTTER; former Defense Nuclear Agency Director Vice Admiral ROBERT MONROE and former Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acting) FRANK GAFFNEY and ROGER W. ROBINSON, former Chief International Economist on the Reagan National Security Council staff.

This video features highlights of this important press conference, including comments by Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, Rick Santorum, Rep. Tom Price and Rep. Trent Franks (via Skype).

 

The text of the letter delivered to Sens. Reid and McConnell is reproduced below.
The original letter, in PDF form, can be found here.

 

 

 

13 December 2010

Hon. Harry Reid
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Hon. Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

 

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell:

As you know, President Obama insists that the United States Senate advise and con­sent during the present lame-duck session to the bilateral U.S.-Russian strategic arms control treaty known as "New START" that he signed earlier this year in Prague. It is our consid­ered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which its rati­fication would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate.

Administration efforts to compel the Senate to vote under circumstances in which an informed and full debate are effectively precluded is inconsistent with your institution’s precedents, its constitutionally mandated quality-control responsibilities with respect to treaties and, in particular, the critical deliberation New START requires in light of that ac­cord’s myriad defects, of which the following are especially problematic: 

  • It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the United States to make the sorts of deep re­ductions in its strategic forces in order to achieve sharp cuts in those of the Russian Federation. After all, the Kremlin’s strategic systems have not been designed for long service lives. Consequently, the number of deployed Russian strategic inter­continental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and long-range, nuclear-capable bombers will drop dramatically, with or without a new arms control agreement.

Russian sources indicate that, within eight-to-nine years, Russian Federation’s in­ventory of strategic launchers will have shrunk from approximately 680 launchers today (some of which already are no longer operational) to approximately 270 launchers, simply as a result of the aging of their systems and the pace of their mod­ernization program. By contrast, the service life of existing U.S. systems extends several decades. In other words, the Russians are going to undergo a substantial contraction in the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal, whether we do or not.

  • There are serious downsides for the United States in moving to the sorts of low numbers of strategic launchers called for in the New START Treaty. These include:

o   New START would encourage placing more warheads on the remaining launchers, i.e., "MIRVing" – which is precisely what the Russians are doing. Moving away from heavily MIRVed strategic launchers has long been consid­ered a highly stabilizing approach to the deployment of strategic forces – and a key U.S. START goal.

o   New START would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our forces – which is exactly the wrong posture to be adopting in the uncertain and dynamic post-Cold War strategic environment. The bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission concluded that "preserving the resilience and survivability of U.S. forces" is essential. The very low launcher levels required by New START are at odds with both of those necessary conditions.

o   New START’s low ceilings on launchers and warheads can only create concerns about America’s extended deterrent. Allied nations have privately warned that the United States must not reduce its strategic force levels to numbers so low that they call into question the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella or en­courage China to see an opportunity to achieve strategic parity with the United States. Some of those who have long looked to us for security may feel con­strained to develop and field their own deterrents – a formula for intensified proliferation.

o   New START’s limitations could result in the destruction of U.S. multi-purpose strategic bombers, affecting not only the robustness of our nuclear deterrent but cutting into our conventional capabilities, as well.

  • Were the United States to slash its strategic nuclear forces to match those the Rus­sians can afford, it would ironically ensure that it has far fewer nuclear weapons – not parity with the Kremlin – when the latter’s ten-to-one advantage in tactical weapons is taken into account. The Russians have consistently refused to limit their tactical nuclear arms, and will surely continue to do so in the future, especially since Moscow has little incentive to negotiate limitations on such weapons when the numbers are so asymmetrical.

This stance should not be surprising since it is this category of weaponry that makes up the bulk of Moscow’s nuclear stockpile. Russian doctrine emphasizes the war-fighting utility of such weapons and their modernization and exercising remain a priority for the Kremlin. In fact, some of those weapons with an explosive power comparable to, if not greatly in excess of, that of the Hiroshima bomb are believed to be aboard submarines and routinely targeted at the United States. Others are targeted against our allies. These were among the reasons that prompted the Con­gressional Strategic Posture Commission to identify the Russian tactical nuclear ar­senal as an "urgent" problem.  

Such capabilities constitute a real asymmetric advantage for Moscow. What is more, given that these Russian tactical nuclear weapons are of greatest concern with re­gard to the potential for nuclear war and proliferation, we cannot safely ignore their presence in large numbers in Russia’s arsenal.  It is certainly ill-advised to make agreements reducing our nuclear deterrent that fail to take them into account.

  • New START imposes de facto or de jure limitations on such important U.S. non­nuclear capabilities as prompt global strike and missile defenses. In the future, the nation is likely to need the flexibility to field both in quantity. It would be folly to limit, let alone effectively preclude, available options to do so.
  • New START is simply not adequately verifiable. Lest assurances that the treaty will be "effectively" verifiable obscure that reality, the truth is that the Russians could engage in militarily significant violations with little fear of detection by the United States. And, for reasons discussed below, it could take years before we could re­spond appropriately.

These and other deficiencies of the New START treaty are seriously exacerbated by the context in which Senators are being asked to consent to its ratification. Specifically, the Senate’s endorsement of this accord would amount to an affirmation of the disarmament agenda for which it is explicitly said to be a building block – namely, Mr. Obama’s stated goal of "ridding the world of nuclear weapons."

This goal has shaped the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and would, if left unchanged, condemn the United States to a posture of unilateral nuclear dis­armament. (See, in this regard, the attached essay by Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2010.) By precluding the development and production of new nuclear weapons and the realistic testing of those currently in the stockpile and by "devaluing" the role played by these weapons and the mission of those re­sponsible for maintaining our deterrent, the NPR sets the stage for the continued obsoles­cence and atrophying of our arsenal. No other nuclear power is engaged in such behavior.  And, given our global security responsibilities and the growing dangers from various quar­ters, neither should we.

For all these reasons, we urge you and your colleagues to resist pressure to consider the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long-overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it. Only by taking such steps can we ensure that we will, in fact, have the "safe, secure and effective deterrent" that even President Obama says we will need for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Judge William P. Clark, Former National Security Advisor to the President

Hon. Edwin Meese, III, Former Counselor the President; Former Attorney General of the United States

Hon. Kathleen Bailey, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Norman Bailey, Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs

Hon. Robert B. Barker, Former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy)

Amb. John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

Brig. Gen. Jimmy L. Cash, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Former Vice-Commander, 7th Air Force

Hon. Fred S. Celec, Former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs

Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union

Hon. Paula DeSutter, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation

Hon. Fritz W. Ermarth, Former Chairman and National Intelligence Officer, National Intelligence Council; Former Member of the National Security Council Staff

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

Daniel J. Gallington, Former Secretary of Defense Representative, Defense and Space Talks; Former General Counsel, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Policy

Hon. Bruce S. Gelb, Former Director, U.S. Information Agency, Former Ambassador to Belgium

Hon. William Graham, Former Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, Former Science Advisor to the President, Former Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Amb. Read Hammer, Former U.S. Chief START Negotiator; Former Deputy Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Hon. Fred Iklé, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Sven F. Kraemer, Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council

Dr. John Lenczowksi, Former Director of European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

Admiral James "Ace" Lyons, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Tidal W. McCoy, Former Secretary of the Air Force (Acting)

Lieut. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Former Deputy Chief of Staff

Hon. J. William Middendorf II, Former Secretary of the Navy, Former Ambassador to the European Union, the Netherlands and the Organization of American States

Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Former Senior Staff, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States; Former Senior Staff, Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, former Executive Secretary of the Cabinet-level Senior Inter-Governmental Group for International Economic Policy

Amb. Ed Rowny, Former U.S. Chief START Negotiator; Former Special Advisor to President Ronald Reagan on Arms Control

Michael S. Swetnam, Former Program Monitor, Intelligence Community Staff with liaison responsibilities to INF and START Interagency Groups, and Former Member of the Technical Advisory Group to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Pacific

Hon. Michelle Van Cleave, Former National Counterintelligence Executive

Dr. William Van Cleave, Former Director, Department of Defense Transition Team

Hon. Troy Wade, Former Director, Defense Programs, U.S. Department of Energy

 

 

Obama’s contempt of Congress

Even for a man known for his arrogance, Barack Obama’s treatment of the Senate in connection with the New START Treaty is astounding.  His demand that Senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress.  It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.

To be sure, Mr. Obama is not the first chief executive to hold the legislative branch in low esteem.  Still, his highhandedness when it comes to the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to play a real role in treaty-making seems particularly contemptuous, and contemptible.

The Obama administration’s insistence that Senators accede to his efforts to relegate them to rubber-stamps is without precedent. As a bipartisan group of fifteen former senators recently observed, never before in the history of the U.S. Senate has the deliberation and vote on an arms control agreement been truncated by their being conducted during a lame-duck session. 

The effort to ram the treaty through before Christmas is no more justified than it is precedented.  The claim being made by the administration and its surrogates that uncertainty about Russian activities necessitates such haste is laughable. President Obama himself is responsible for allowing previous verification arrangements to lapse. He did so over a year ago and seemed untroubled until now about there being no monitoring systems in place.  And the insights this accord’s limited inspection and monitoring arrangements will afford are hardly up to the job of detecting the Kremlin’s inveterate cheating and other strategically ominous developments.

It turns out the real need for verification lies elsewhere – namely, in establishing what Team Obama has given away with respect to missile defense in course of negotiating New START, and in the months since that treaty was signed.  Last week, the Washington Times’ ace national security reporter, Bill Gertz, revealed that the administration had been caught lying to Senators concerned about yet another agreement now being developed with the Russians.  Apparently, it would go beyond the undesirable limitations on U.S. anti-missile systems – both direct and indirect – that were incorporated into the present accord. (In a marvelous essay at National Review Online, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy demonstrates both the reality and undesirability of those limitations.)

The Obama administration has tried to allay concerns about any new negotiations by saying that they are simply building on talks the Bush administration had previously held with Moscow on missile defense cooperation.  As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Keith Payne, who headed up the U.S. delegation to those talks, pointed out to a Capitol Hill audience last week, his explicit instructions were not to discuss (let alone agree to) limits of any kind on our anti-missile capabilities.  It is hard to imagine a more different agenda than that of Mr. Obama – whose ideologically driven antipathy to such defenses seems about as deep-seated as his disdain for those in Congress who have sought to protect Americans against ballistic missile attack.

Such Senators have an obligation to understand what the administration has actually agreed to with respect to missile defense.  Yet, as was made plain by the false official assurances Mr. Gertz uncovered, legislators cannot possibly do so unless they have access to the New START negotiating record – which chronicles the evolution of the treaty over the many months of parleys between the two sides. 

This document would also reveal how the U.S. position on issue after issue unraveled in the face of Russian opposition and Mr. Obama’s determination to get a deal, no matter how bad its terms.  It would, in short, be an embarrassment as well as an impediment to ratification of the New START Treaty. 

As a result, every request by Senators for the negotiating record has been spurned in what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently characterized as a "no-hit" game.  Presumably, she is referring to the success her department and the rest of the administration have had in suppressing opposition witnesses, inconvenient questions and unhelpful information.

The question is:  Will the Senate allow such contempt to be tolerated?  If so, one thing is sure.  There will be more where that comes from.

Senators are on notice that New START establishes a Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) that can, and surely will, make deals that affect the treaty’s terms in material ways – and do so without the Senate’s advice or consent. U.S. and Russian negotiators working on restricting our missile defenses and still further reductions in our nuclear deterrent forces will be emboldened, confident that their handiwork will not be subjected to serious quality-control. 

And the administration will portray the Senate as on board with its agenda of denuclearizing the world, starting with the United States.  It is absolutely predictable that any deal made to secure approval of New START that is at odds with that agenda (notably, Sen. Jon Kyl’s laudable efforts to secure funding for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex) will soon be over the side.

In short, if the Senate ignores the President’s contempt for it as a constitutionally mandated partner in treaty making, if it ignores the lack of precedent for lame-duck consideration of an arms control treaty, if it ignores the need to do due-diligence, if it ignores the request of eleven of those newly elected to serve in the Senate of the 112th Congress to hold off on New START until they are sworn in, Senators will not only get more contempt.  They will have earned it.

 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

 

New START, old stratagem

Here we go again.  President Obama is trying once again to ram a legislative initiative through Congress knowing full well that, by so doing, he is maximizing the chances that his project’s defects will not become widely understood until it is too late to do much about them.  Call it the pig-in-a-poke stratagem.

This time around, however, Mr. Obama is not simply trying to socialize the economy, destroy the world’s finest health care system or assault the Constitution.  No, at the moment he has the national security in his crosshairs – and the negative implications could make those associated with his other, domestic policy campaigns pale by comparison.

Specifically, the President is determined to with "rid the world of nuclear weapons" – and he is intent on securing the U.S. Senate’s imprimatur for this truly hare-brained idea.   That is the real impetus behind his insistence that senators rubber-stamp during the lame-duck session the so-called "New START" arms control treaty that Mr. Obama signed with his Russian counterpart last April.

You see, the treaty was accompanied by – and is intended to put what amounts to an international seal of approval on – an administration-generated document known as the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).  The NPR commits the United States to continue on a course that would, all other things being equal, assure the continued atrophying of the American deterrent.  For example, it forswears the design and manufacture of any new nuclear weapons; precludes realistic, underground testing of the obsolescing arms in the U.S. arsenal; and pledges to "devalue" the nuclear deterrence mission of those responsible for maintaining and safeguarding the forces designed to perform it.

Now, most senators – like most Americans – have the good sense to think it advisable for the United States to maintain a viable deterrent.  As a result, these sorts of proposals would be unlikely to command majority support, let alone the super-majority the Constitution requires to ratify New START.

So, Team Obama is coming up with just about any other rationale to justify its insistence that the Senate vote on the treaty before Christmas.  These include claims that the accord will help dissuade would-be proliferators to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions and the assertion that U.S. international leadership is on the line.

The administration’s flacks are particularly insistent that the urgency derives from the fact that, without New START’s monitoring arrangements, we won’t know what the Russians are up to.  They warn darkly that, while bilateral relations with the Kremlin have been productively "reset," the sky will fall if ratification is not forthcoming over the next three weeks.

Like so much of the Obama administration’s handiwork, none of these propositions stands up to close scrutiny.  As an innovative new video by the Center for Security Policy makes clear, our enemies are emboldened by what they perceive as U.S. weakness, not induced to emulate it.  Our leadership is far more likely to be taken seriously if we are seen as providing a credible deterrent than if we are cutting it so deeply as, for instance, to invite China to become a peer superpower. And the Kremlin’s denizens cannot be both reliable partners for peace and disposed, as ever, to cheat on treaties and pursue their interests without regard to ours.

To watch the Center’s new interactive video,
"Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty," click the image below.

 

 

The administration’s hope for pulling off this bait-and-switch seems likely to come down to one hackneyed gambit:  The say-so of an array of prominent endorsers whose past titles, celebrity, self-importance, etc. is intended to dissuade senators from doing their own due diligence.   Former Presidents Bush 41 and 43 are currently being importuned to join assorted past and present cabinet and senior military officers in playing this unseemly role.

The gambit only works, however, if legislators are willing to vote on the basis of such political cover – rather than, say, doing their homework. Opting for the former would require them to ignore the strong recommendation of their colleague, Sen. Kit Bond, who has done his job as Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and concluded that the treaty is unverifiable.

Will they also disregard Senate Majority Whip Jon Kyl?  He is rightly worried that the Obama administration’s fixation with denuclearizing the United States will render hollow the commitments Team Obama is currently dangling with respect to funding certain modernization measures that are utterly at odds with that agenda, all in the hope of securing Sen. Kyl’s highly influential vote.

If the handful of swing senators who will decide whether the Senate will indeed rubber-stamp New START are going to take counsel from anyone, they would be well-advised to heed not only these two distinguished colleagues in the 111th Congress, but also the views of past colleagues and future ones:  A bipartisan group of fifteen former senators recently wrote Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that it would be unprecedented and ill-advised to consider an arms control treaty during a necessarily truncated lame-duck session.  And, eleven newly elected senators led by Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri added in their own joint letter that taking up this treaty during the lame-duck would mean that "yesterday’s Senate" would decide its adequacy – not tomorrow’s, on whose watch it would largely be implemented.

There will be plenty of time next year for the U.S. Senate to review, debate and make necessary improvements to the New START Treaty.  And that is precisely what Barack Obama wants to preclude with his all-too-familiar pig-in-a-poke stratagem.  The Senate must not fall for it again.
 
 Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Whose side is he on? “Disarmed And Dangerous” reveals why America’s enemies love Obama’s New START’

Washington, DC– The Center for Security Policy today launched an innovative and interactive Youtube feature exposing the danger that Obama’s New Start Treaty will disarm America in a threatening world of many emerging nuclear powers. Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty presents an inventive and interactive video guide to how the treaty, in reality, escalates the threats from China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Watch Disarmed & Dangerous: Stop the New START Treaty now.

 

As President Obama pressures the Senate leadership to rubber-stamp his “New START” disarmament treaty with Russia, concerns continue to mount that the accord will actually make the world more dangerous, not less.

The case is becoming stronger by the day that senators should defer action on this flawed accord until the 112th Congress is seated – affording an opportunity to explore, debate and, where necessary, correct its defects. For example, recent Wikileaks documents have revealed that: North Korea has developed a sophisticated covert uranium enrichment program; Iran has acquired from Pyongyang nuclear-capable missiles capable of reaching much of Europe; and China has enabled North Korea’s proliferation activities.

In unveiling the new video campaign, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:

President Obama’s claims that the New START Treaty will enhance American security and make the planet safer do not stand up to scrutiny.  Neither do his arguments for a truncated debate on this accord.  Senators and their constituents need the truth about the Obama administration’s dangerous plans to weaken the United States.  To get it, they are going to have to reject the bum’s rush they are being given – and consider the Treaty when it is possible to do so in a careful and constitutionally appropriate way, namely next year.

 

10 Senators-elect request ‘New START’ treaty delay until new Congress

Ten Senators-elect have requested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reserve consideration of the "New START" Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation for the 112th Congress, which will begin in January.

The ten Senators-elect made the request in a letter (PDF), stating: 

One of the most important tasks of the 112th Congress will be to carefully consider measures that protect the national security of the United States.  And few matters will more directly impact our security than arms control agreements like New START that would dramatically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent in a strategic environment that is becoming ever more perilous.

 The letter continues:

Out of respect for our states’ voters, we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the New START Treaty or any other treaty in a lame duck session prior to January 3, 2011.  Indeed, no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame duck session.
 
Additionally we are hopeful to have the opportunity, along with the full Senate, to review the treaty’s negotiating record, which is a critically important component in putting the pact in full context.
 
Proponents of this treaty, aware that today’s Senate is likely to support the agreement in higher numbers without our participation, are urging the Senate to give its advice and consent in the coming weeks.  We call on you to defer action on this arms control treaty until the Senate reconvenes in the 112th Congress and we are able to participate fully and in an informed manner in its deliberations on New START.

 
The letter was signed by Senators-elect Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.)