When it comes down to it, Barack Obama and conservatives operate from fundamentally different cognitive triads: they don't agree about what America ought to be doing, they don't agree about what its role in the world should be, and they have different preconceptions about what will happen in the future.
On Russia, conservatives -- broadly here -- believe that our relationship is fundamentally adversarial, and will remain adversarial, because it's in the interests of Russia to be adversarial. In this view, Russia is dangerous, is doing dangerous things in the world, is allied with dangerous people, and views the world through a bipolar lens. The sensibility of an adversary must never be placated unless it measurably increases your security. To concede unilaterally always appeases the adversary because it fortifies their will. America can never appear weak; it can never appear humble; it must lead by example; it must honor its commitments to its allies; it must always project strength, lest it become just like every other country -- that is, unexceptional -- and therefore unable to serve its destined role in the world. What separates the Russia of today from the expansionist, imperialist Russia of the Cold War is a fear of U.S. power. Also: they believe that missile defense systems really work -- or, if they don't quite work yet, will work -- and don't understand why, given the chance to design a system that will protect the country from ballistic missiles, anyone could possibly oppose it. Assuming that adversaries will act rationally is naive, and conceding them to is tantamount to surrender.
For Obama, strength is projected through the exercise of a larger set of values. He does not believe that a humble country -- and here he shares a view with George W. Bush pre-Iraq -- is necessarily a weak country; he does not believe in projecting military strength for the sake of projecting military strength. He does not believe that the cultivation or fear, or brinkmanship, ought to be the basis for policy. And though he doesn't quite admit this, I don't think Obama subscribes to a providential view of America's role in the world -- one that exists prior to policy, or prior to history. So Russia's interests can be reconciled with America's interests. And if, in the furthering of America's interests, decisions are seen as concessions under the old metaphor, so be it. American interests are no less concrete: in this case, Obama believes than Iran is a much larger threat than Russia; it believes that money ought to be spent to deter Iran's likely capabilities; it believes that overmatching deterrence technology would encourage Iran to get up to speed more quickly; it assumes that, by locating a radar station and missile battery up north, tensions with Russia will increase; and that, if anything, removing the missiles gives the Russians one less way to avoid the pressure for them to act against Iran. From the standpoint of security, the U.S. and NATO actually have a freer hand to respond to any provocation by Russia.
If you don't think Obama is an appeaser, Ambinder, then why the cute hed? You spineless maggot.
Obama's wide-eyed naive view of the world is ridiculous and dangerous. Is he an appeaser? That would suggest he actually has some sort of a plan. He does not. He lurches from one disaster to another domestically still relying on that phony smile and a barrage of words that signify nothing. His foreign policy is driven by the same sort of wooly-headed, stupidly idealistic misconceptions that characterized the Carter administration and even today he foolishly echos the absurd notions of that flatulently noisy old hack, Carter himself.
And what did Obama get in return for his largesse vis-a-vis the Russians? Nothing, nada, zilch, bupkas, zero.
This guy is starting to make Carter look good (shudder!).
Obama and conservatives are at the opposite ends of infinity, and neither shall the two ever meet. It is clear that Obama, unlike Clinton is not willing to moderate his positions for reelection or the good of the country. We will see what 2010 brings to his administration. Hopefully there will be enough congressional change to force him to slow down his train wreck policies. http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/
...the above three posts courtesy the same folks whose lies and idealistic delusions, broadcast uncritically by Ambinder and those he emulates in the Beltway media, resulted in the disaster now known in polite company as "the Bush administration." Just providing context.
Are the people at the state department completely incompetent??
It's bad enough that our allies expended political capital to back us and have been hung out to dry, but to announce the cancellation of the missle defense system on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland and the massacre of millions. Can you say cognitive dissonance? Morons
"...and that, if anything, removing the missiles gives the Russians one less way to avoid the pressure for them to act against Iran."
So, if we, say, eliminated all our nuclear weapons, Russian wouldn't be able to avoid pressure to act against Iran at all then?
The ABM Treaty of 1972 was negotiated by Nixon and Kissinger to ensure the doctrine of 'mutually assured destruction.' It was to lock relative offensive parity in. Other aspects of "detente" were reductions in offensive missile capability on both sides. A lot of talk about single war headed missiles and multiple ones. These were hard fought negotiations with Russian during the depth of the Cold War.
Missile defense or "Star Wars" was conceived by Reagan but floundered uner him and every president since. Forget the politics - the technology as a whole has never been proven.
Bush brought politics into the foreground of the issue by shredding the ABM Treaty, one of the most dangerous and bizarre actions that Administration took outside the invasion of Iraq. If Obama went ahead with missile defense, the Russians would check us with new offensive, decoy or other technologies that would make US 'superiority' in the atomic game short-lived.
Never thought I'd live to see the day when I'd look back fondly on Nixon and Kissinger, two architects and warriors of the Cold War. Compared to conservative critics now, nostalgia brings a breath of fresh air.
In addition to CAM@'s insights:
After the Cold War ended, Russia dismantled the Warsaw Pact and withdrew from Eastern Europe. In contrast, we maintained NATO and keep large forces in Germany -- making Germany a still-occupied country.
Next, we start moving NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders -- a provocation easy enough for a child to understand. The recent misadventure in Georgia underlines the aggressiveness and stupidity of this policy -- rooted in obsolete Cold War thinking.
There are no inherent threats to us from either Russia or Iran.
Russia is a valuable source of raw materials and will be a valuable trading partner once it gets its economic house -- scrambled by an attempt to imitate "free market" economics -- in order.
Iranian missiles are designed to hit Israel and can also reach US bases in the region. The likelihood of a suicidal first strike by Iran on either set of targets is zero -- the weapons are obviously defensive.
Obama's decision is based on a clear-headed assessment and immulity from the self-serving delusions of our military-industrial- war party complex.