Good morning.
- Contra syncretism.
- Just the sort of thing to implement during a major recession. Putting it succinctly as felony stupidity.
- What passes for argument from the left. Left leaning elitist propaganda here too.
- Pie … now!!!
- Of church and state in Morocco.
- A strange argument indeed, in which political fitness is measured by pork, which I would think is a bad thing, not a good one.
- Waste, done Democrat flavor.
- Just a few kids and not a lot of money can produce remarkable results.
- Yet another day, yet another boldfaced lie from the Administration.
- A genuine adult film.
- Future polymath projects.
- Watching the DOJ.
- Will there be any notice of this on the left?
- Missile defense, is this more of Obama’s foreign policy strategy of coddling your enemies and rejecting your friends?
- Taxonomy of NGO.
- Now, I thought in my essays that sometimes I connect disparate ideas … but Nazi movies and the thoughts of dead fish … that’s noetic movement indeed.
Alright, I give up.
I’m a leftist (and by left I don’t mean mainstream Democrat but more of a, let’s say, Communist) and an atheist. I write about Russia and politics and lurid things. And you keep linking to my blog! Thank you! Seriously, one of my best friends in the universe is a strongly Evangelical Christian (and maybe this is how you found my blog?) But I’m … perplexed. Why?
Well, I hope this means you’re enjoying it anyway.
Poemless,
).
I have linked you because you write (brilliantly at times I might add) about “Russia and politics … ” (and maybe less about lurid things
I don’t remember how I found you, it may have been a link from this site, or perhaps from “Global Voices Online”. Anyhow, I’ve recently started trying to keep track of global viewpoints and events by trying to monitor small blogs in places of interest. You are now in my feeder (and as I said, write brilliantly at times … and in English, which for me helps).
Missile defense, is this more of Obama’s foreign policy strategy of coddling your enemies and rejecting your friends?
A while ago we got into a discussion about Obama and foreign policy and you asked me ‘what have we got’. I didn’t have a good answer then but since then I’ve learned that our relations with Russia have improved and Russia has allowed us to fly over their airspace to conduct operations in Afghanistan, which was a serious problem before.
“Missile defense” supporters leave a lot of questions on the table. First is the Russian stance that it’s not really defense but a first strike weapon. They have a point, SDI as first envisioned by Reagan would allow a super majority or all ICBM’s to be destroyed. It does not require a lot of intelligence to see how this can be used as a first strike weapon. Attack an enemies cities then shoot down his ICBM’s.
Now Regan’s vision was a failure. It is not technically feasible to take down anything more than a handful of incoming warheads for the time being. But in limited engagements SDI remains a partially offensive weapon. Imagine a case, for example, where Russia launches 4 or 5 missiles at Poland and Nato responds with 10 and SDI takes out Russia’s incoming. Pleas from the international community bring both sides to the peace table but Russia has asorbed 10 nuclear strikes and Nato none. Russia’s options are to either accept defeat or risk a full scale nuclear war by launching enough missiles to overwhelm SDI. It’s not hard to see why Russia would perceive an East European based SDI system as less of a defensive measure against rogue states like Iran and more of an attempt to solidify NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s doorstep.
From the link:
If I was a Russian military analyst I’d suspect this is a ruse. ICBM’s are easier to take down in their launch phase than in their final stages. Both Iran and North Korea are potential sources of rogue launches and on top of that North Korea is in the business of selling missiles so the actual source of a rogue launch may be unpredictable. A ship based system allows you to position SDI near suspect states and move it should a new state present itself as a problem.
Where a ship based system is weak, though, is against a country like Russia which does not have easy access to the ocean and has plenty of room to base its launch bases deep inland. I would think, therefore, that the neocon disparagement of ship based SDI is not a very sincere argument.
In a world where we had little else to concern ourselves with, I can see an argument for containing Russia (and China) as our chief foreign policy concern. But if terrorism and rogue states are our biggest problem, it seems to me that having a closer relationship with Russia and China is the more valuable option…even though that means Poland gets left out in the cold a bit. Harsh? A bit.
I have a difficulty accepting your point of view as “harsh.” Poland is a sovereign nation. Poland is a member of NATO. Poland is part of the EU. Poland is not under any current immediate military threat from anyone. There was little if any evidence that the missile defense system could actually work. And before yesterday, the mds remained only a plan. The assertion that Obama’s decision to scrap this plan now leaves Poland vulnerable and unprotected and is therefore irresponsible is hyperbolic at best. They are no more and no less secure than any other nation in the NATO alliance, no more and no less secure than they were 2 days ago and no more and no less responsible for their own security than any sovereign nation.
Obama’s responsibility is securing America. There was no clear proof that a mds in Poland would protect America from Iran, given that Iran does not have long range missiles and the defense system was not reliably effective. The only thing this system was guaranteed to do was cost money and upset Russia, who were aware that Iran does not have long range missiles and the defense system was not reliably effective, but that it could be used for a first-strike against *them.* And America has nothing to gain from wasting money and making new enemies just so Polish politicians can sleep better at night.
Which is not to say that Poland should not be complaining. It was not right of America to use them as a pawn, even if they did agree to that role. Also, they just suffered some public humiliation, so of course they are sore.
Mark,
Well, gosh, I’m flattered! Thanks.
FWIW, here is my friend’s blog: http://glassesoff.org/ Also a global perspective, but with less of the lurid stuff.
Er, well, it looks like it is temporarily down. Hopefully she’ll fix that.
MDS in Poland was/is almost as much about Russia as Iran. A ship based system is able to get closer to Iran and address launches in their boost phase. A land based system in Poland only addresses a launch from Iran either to Europe or to the US over Europe. It does not address a far more likely attack by Iran on Israel or other M.E. countries. Additionally, it does not reflect strategic thinking very well. If Poland has an excellent mds system, Iran could simply bypass it by launching a missile to hit the US by flying over Asia or southwards. Yes it would require a more roundabout flight plan but that’s it.
This only makes sense, then, in case of a war between Iran and Poland which is hardly very likely.
Yet another day, yet another boldfaced lie from the Administration.
I don’t think so. The admin is saying privately purchased premiums avg more than employer purchased ones. The WSJ quotes the CBO as asserting privately purchased premiums are 1/3 lower. How can this be?
1. Is it apples to apples? Since privately purchased plans face both a tax disadvantage AND selection disadvantage (pre-existing conditions? you’re premiums are much higher!) the people who DO buy private plans may be buying less coverage. Additionally people for whom private premiums would be very high do opt not to buy private coverage so the actual plans purchased privately do end up being 1/3rd less. That doesn’t make it untrue to assert that if you took 100 random people getting employer coverage today and tried to make them buy coverage privately their premiums would end up higher.
2. It doesn’t make any sense. If privately purchased coverage is 1/3 less than employer coverage it begs the question of:
a. Why aren’t benefit experts employed by big employers doing their job of extracting value with their bargaining power?
b. Why aren’t employees demanding higher pay in exchange for no coverage? At 33% savings the tax benefits are being eclipsed.
Boonton & Poemless,
Well, being an average geographically challenged American it took a little while for me to get a map out. MDS in Poland is not exactly coherent if you’re talking about Iran as the threat. Georgia, Turkey, Moldavia, and the Ukraine make more sense. A MDS in place in those countries might served to protect all of Europe from an attack, and not “just” the host country. The benefit to a country of a missile defense system goes beyond the actual defense, but includes economic benefits which accompany putting in a high tech base in your neighborhood.
Now, seeing that one of the two parties cites as being stiffed by this move by Obama was the Ukraine and both of you pointedly note only Poland in your discussion leaves me suspicious.
My criticism however, was that Mr Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t make sense (at least to me). He acts coldly to the UK, Israel, and other allies and makes weak overtures to those states which are hostile, which has been weak enough to be more likely to actually increase their hostility and aggressiveness. On the face of it this seems an overall strategy to enforce some sort of back-door isolationist policy.
MDS is being argued for as a way to counter Iran. I think I demonstrated why Russia sees through that as a weak argument and you demonstrated that MDS in Poland is not really about Iran.
Yes I’m sure Poland stands to gain some economic benefit from a ‘high tech’ base in its borders but I think your estimate is overblown. An MDS is essentially a radar station combined with a launch base. It’s probably not going to be staffed by large numbers of well paid US troops seeking to blow their pay every Friday night.
As Poemless pointed out it’s not even clear Poland really wants this so I’m not sure how you can read this as a snub to Poland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Robert Gates in today’s NYT defends the decision to scrap the plan (which he originally proposed in the Bush admin.) and goes into some detail on what the replacement plan entails (and it sounds like it actually has more capability than the original plan)
Boonton,
So is this explanation post hoc spin? Or if not, why was none of this mentioned in the initial announcement. And, btw, in what waters is the DMS to be deployed prior to “installations in Central and Eastern Europe” … (and if Central/Eastern Europe isn’t that exactly the Ukraine as was noted in the prior announcement or does he have designs on Moldavia and Georgia … which will likely tickle the Russians pink).
Mark,
Ukraine? I’ve never seen the country mentioned in discussion of the proposed mds plans, which were for an interceptor in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. Ukraine was not only never a member of the plan, such a plan would have had even more opposition among the public than it did in the CR, where 70% of the population opposed it. Whenever the US tries to conduction NATO exercises in or near the Ukraine, there are always large protests. I suppose it is true the current Ukrainian government would like a US mds in their country, but the current Ukrainian government also has a %4 approval rating among its people (no, not a typo.)
The mds shield was ostensibly to protect from a strike from Iran. Iran has no reason nor capability to strike Poland. As for our friends and enemies, Obama is the President of America first and foremost, and his responsibility is to protect America and use our money wisely. Having allies does not mean that we should give priority to their wants over our needs. Period. Furthermore, it is outdated to think of Russia as an enemy. There are many many important shared interests between the two countries and no implicit reason why we should not try to work together. It’s the mature thing to do.
Poemless,
Hmm, my memory must be on the blink. Maybe I’m confusing the CR and the Ukraine.