Conservative

By John Fay

---

My favorite social commentator/cartoonist would have to be the creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, Scott Adams. In one strip, Dilbert’s pet, Dogbert, leads the company employees in a trust exercise by having each of them sign a blank check and then handing it over to him. When pressed to explain what such an activity has to do with trust, Dogbert responds: “This will teach you that trust is a very good thing for other people to have.”

I wonder if Vladimir Putin feels a bit like Dogbert these days.

George W. Bush was widely criticized here for saying he had “seen into Putin’s soul” back in 2001, yet President Obama didn’t even wait that long to shoot off a letter to Russia offering a “trade.” Of course, now that the story is out, both Obama and the Russians are backpedaling, denying there was any quid pro quo in this now thoroughly “unsecret” letter. But whatever the exact wording was, it is clear that Obama was asking for Russian support on the Iranian nuclear issue, and at least hinted that we would not station anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe as an exchange.

There really is no way that such an idea could end up a win for us. In a best-case scenario, Russia supports us on the one issue it should be with us on anyway, without being restrained from, say, invading Georgia, cutting off oil to Europe or any other typically Russian shenanigans. Meanwhile, the Czech and Polish governments, which have invested considerable political capital in this plan, will feel humiliated and betrayed.

Now to be fair, neither government is leaping at this proposed exchange. Cooler heads than Obama’s appear to be ameliorating the language for our allies, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ attempt to emphasize that we would consult with them on any changes.

The Russians, meanwhile, appear willing to wait for more formal negotiations. And why not? When someone offers a fox the keys to the henhouse without even thinking about the consequences, the fox may well want to wait to see if he can sucker them into giving him the keys to the whole barn. This may not be an unreasonable thought, seeing as Obama appears eager to pursue the Democratic tradition of stiffing our friends in order to give our foes the bank.

This whole bizarre incident seems eerily reminiscent of an affair during the Carter era, when the president embarrassed the French and German governments by choosing not to station new missiles in their territory after a year of pressuring them to agree to the missile presence. Carter’s reasoning: it will show good will toward the Russians. Russia’s response: let’s invade Afghanistan. Fortunately, Obama has done two things that will save him from a mistake of Carter-esque proportions. First, he’s been characteristically vague and noncommittal. Because no one knows what he actually wrote, he hasn’t bound himself to any form of action. Second, he’s been attentive to the concerns of citizens and Cabinet officials who are considerably wiser than he when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully, therefore, he will end up realizing how silly this whole idea is and shelve it.

However, I am concerned. The very fact that Obama has done something like this indicates that he has a dangerous naiveté when it comes to foreign relations. He does not understand the simple fact that folks like the Russians and Iranians are notoriously disloyal, dishonest and manipulative. He also has trod dangerously close to the dishonorable liberal tendency of humiliating our allies to please our foes. The very fact that this letter was sent at all was a mistake, and I pray that it is not repeated on a greater scale.

Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Liberal

By Greg Ryan

---

The only good thing about the anti-ballistic missile system the Bush administration planned to install in Poland and the Czech Republic is that Obama will get to jettison the program and reap the domestic and geopolitical benefits of undoing Bush policies. This kind of dividend will be paying out for quite a while.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to “hit the reset button on the relationship,” and the message of a fresh start is very hopeful indeed.

Major evidence of this new commitment to true diplomacy was reported earlier in the week. President Obama sent a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hinting that the United States might be willing to scrap the missile defense system if Russia could be of assistance in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Whatever the details of the letter, which both presidents say is vague and non-committal, the message is once again clear: This is a whole new administration which is not wedded to the thickheaded policies of George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney.

Over the last eight years, our relationship with Russia has deteriorated badly. Worse, Russia has grown more authoritarian domestically and more aggressive on the world stage. The invasion of Georgia — in which the aggressive party is yet to be determined — and the current natural gas disputes with Europe are just the most recent and most dramatic result of a Putinian Russia determined to reclaim the status once held by the USSR.

Bush had a chance to steer Russia in a favorable direction through real diplomacy. Instead, he looked into Putin’s eyes, declared that we would be friends, and proceeded to sabotage that friendship for the remainder of his presidency.

The missile-defense system that the Obama administration is thinking of scrapping is a costly and useless piece of Cold-War, ’80s-retro-chic, Reagan-wannabe, Star-Wars-reissue memorabilia. Understandably, Russia is not keen on having an American missile system on its doorstep. Despite Russia’s legitimate insistence that this hyperaggressive feces be kept off its lawn, the Bush administration held fast to the plan, severely damaging any possibility of accomplishing anything positive with the Russians.

Ostensibly, the mission of the planned missile shield was to protect NATO from Iranian nuclear ballistic missiles, and not from Russia. But even this goal is woefully misguided, as missile shields always have been. The best way to protect against nukes is nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Throughout its reign, the Bush administration raised all manner of Cain about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, while simultaneously making it more likely that it will do so. When Bush came into office, the president of Iran was moderate, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami. Once his country was declared a member of the “axis of evil,” the hard-liners in Iran had all the ammunition they needed to oust him in favor of anti-American, pro-nuclear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Add to that the war in Iraq — which has removed Iran’s principal rival and strengthened their position in the region — and you have the disastrous situation we see today. Despite all the talk from Bush and company, Iran may be moving closer to a weapon.

A new approach is desperately needed with both Russia and Iran. Diplomacy is the answer. Clinton’s recent meeting with her Russian counterpart is a start. Even better will be the end of this dreadful missile shield project. If we’re lucky, the Obama administration will think up even more ways to use contemptible Bush policies they don’t really like — and want to get rid of anyway as bargaining chips with the world.

Reach columnist Greg Ryan at opinion@dailyuw.com.

5 Comments

---

2 Comments

---