June 18, 2011

Romney Goes After Obama’s Foreign Policy.

  11:59 am

Mitt Romney has written a new Op-ed. Entitled “The Price of Inexperience”, it takes dead aim at Obama’s bumbling in foreign affairs:

Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.

The Obama administration claimed at the time that the treaty was an excellent deal. This claim has been proven false. A new official accounting performed by the State Department acknowledges that the number of launchers and warheads in Russia’s nuclear arsenal was already below New START’s limitations when the treaty took effect, while the U.S. arsenal was well above them. In short: We’re the ones who now have to give, while Russia gets.

In agreeing to START, President Obama squandered an opportunity to extract a number of concessions from the Russians that would have advanced U.S. interests. He could have pressed for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its tactical nuclear force, which outnumbers ours by an overwhelming margin. He could have tried to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But instead he frittered away American bargaining chips and got nothing in return.

Unfortunately, that’s become a bit of a pattern. Before signing New START, he abruptly abandoned our Europe-based missile-defense program as part of his “reset” policy with Russia, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch. In return? Nothing. He’s been pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinians on settlements and borders even before negotiations between them begin. In return? Nothing.

There’s a price to be paid for inexperience in the White house. We are paying it.

582 days to January 20, 2013.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Good Op-Ed by Mitt. I do, however, disagree with it a little. I think we did get something out of Russia because of the treaty and that was relative short-term peace. Things were getting pretty testy there for a while between Russia and the US. The treaty neutralized any animosity that was bubbling to the top. We are not less safe because of our reduction in arms, and I think it was a gesture of good will to Russia. It allowed Obama to accomplish one of his liberal policy goals of denuclearization as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think Russia is a dangerous country that is not our friend. We need to be careful with them. We should never give up anything substantive to them without serious concessions from them as well. We need to make sure that we have all the resources we need to defend out country. But the days of the stock piling nuclear weapons is over, and I have no problem with our reduction. Both countries still have arsenals that are capable of destroying the planet several times over. There was no substantive change from either countries position.


With that said, I think Mitt's criticisms are good ones. Many people (including most here) will probably disagree with me about us getting anything out of this deal. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitt disagrees with me. It is a critique that makes sense to the average American and highlights his experience as a negotiator.


I'm not an expert on Russia, but I don't think they respect weakness. I don't think caving to their desires makes us MORE safe.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16