Once the Russians knew they could roll Obama, they then did so routinely. Part of Obama’s motivation in dropping missile defense was to gain greater cooperation from Moscow in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program. After Obama’s announcement, senior Russian officials said explicitly that no assistance would be forthcoming. When tougher sanctions came up soon after Obama threw Eastern Europe down the stairs, the Russians were said to be “very reserved,” which was diplo-speak for “go fly a kite.” From that point on, whenever new sanctions on Iran came up at the United Nations, the Russians balked. When missile defense cooperation between the two countries came up, the Russians were “noncommittal.” And on the new U.S. sea-based missile defense system (the one for which we chucked the land-based one in Eastern Europe), the Russians oppose that because it “could pose an even stronger security threat to Moscow.” This is generally what appeasement produces.
In a classic Obama maneuver designed to make him appear tough, he called Medvedev and said that he knew the real cause of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. Barry said he had secret video footage of why it happened and accused the Russians of storing radioactive alien technology that they had brought back from the moon. A stunned Medvedev said through his translator, “Mr. President, that was not real. That was the plot of Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”
Just when the Russians couldn’t believe their good fortune in getting everything they wanted on Eastern Europe without having to give anything in return, they got another dazzling gift from Obama in early 2010: a promise to never use nuclear weapons. Fully embracing the most far left position since the advent of the Bomb, Obama prohibited the use of these weapons, except in the narrowest of circumstances. According to the New York Times: “For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.”
Let those words sink in. Your commander in chief told the world that he will not defend you or the nation with nuclear weapons even if we are attacked with a massive anthrax or poison gas attack that has people dying in the streets in the most horrific ways. He will not defend you. He will not even threaten to defend you.
He said he believes those threats could be “deterred,” but he also carved out exemptions for Iran and North Korea because they have either renounced the Non-Proliferation Treaty (North Korea) or blown it off (Iran)—as if they had ever held to the commitments on a piece of paper. (Hmm … Iran and North Korea. Two of the original three members of the “axis of evil.” See: Bush Was Right, Volume 38, 674.)
The single most frightening thing Obama said about the new policy was this: “I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues.”
Testing our credibility is the only thing our enemies are interested in. Enemies poke and prod us, and when we bend, ignore, or appease them, they believe we are weak. When we fail that credibility test, they then step up their aggression. Witness: Pearl Harbor, the entire history of the cold war, and September 11. To his “no first use” policy, Obama added another longtime kook pipe dream: a “world without nuclear weapons.” In order to get the ball rolling, he decided the United States would develop no new nuclear weapons while he was president. His own first Defense secretary, Robert Gates, and many Democrats argued for allowing the development of new ones and the modernization of our current arsenal. Obama refused.
Speaking of nukes, ever wonder how many nuclear weapons we have? Wonder no more. It’s 5,113! For the first time in U.S. history, an American president revealed the precise size of our nuclear arsenal. And he followed up that outrage with another: on December 31, 2011, Obama issued a signing statement attached to the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill. In it, he indicated a willingness to share top-secret U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia. We spent decades, trillions of dollars, and countless lives to defeat the Russkies. Now Obama is just handing them our greatest national security secrets without asking for so much as a Mentos in exchange.
And he didn’t just disclose the particulars of our nuclear arsenal. Why, our allies should be in on the fun too, so Obama also disclosed top-secret intelligence about the British nuclear arsenal to the Russians, cavalierly disregarding our ally’s pleas to keep the information secret. Peace out, GB!
Obama then set out to complete the U.S.-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a cold war–era relic that forced us to cut nuclear weapons as Obama pushed for their total elimination. The New START treaty cut our nuclear arsenal by 30 percent, hamstrung our missile defense and the Prompt Global Strike system (intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads), ignored tactical nuclear weapons (which are most available and vulnerable to terrorist acquisition), exempted Russian rail-based ICBMs, and failed to demand ironclad verification of Russian compliance. God-awful deal for us, great deal for Russia, so of course Obama heralded it as a landmark treaty. Most senators unfortunately agreed and ratified it just days before Christmas 2010.
The Russian response? The Kremlin stepped up its stonewalling on Iranian and Syrian sanctions, didn’t resume compliance with another cold war–era treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement, and threatened to target U.S. missile defense sites in Europe with their offensive missiles unless Obama dropped all missile defense plans. They also threatened to withdraw from the New START treaty completely if Obama didn’t accede to their demands. In December 2011, even Hillary Clinton grew exasperated with the Russian intransigence and blurted out the Bush argument for missile defense in Europe: “This is not directed at Russia, it is not about Russia. It is frankly about Iran and other state or non-state actors who are seeking to develop threatening missile technology,” she said.
The Russians weren’t having it: Putin accused the United States of allegedly stoking protests against his party, United Russia, after a suspect parliamentary election win in late 2011, and a top Russian general warned of a new “arms race.” Obama gave the Russians a yard with the New START treaty and they took a mile. Personally, Obama went further. In March 2012, he was caught on mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin to wait until after November for more give-away-the-store deals: “After my election,” he whispered to Dmitry, “I have more flexibility.” He also gave the Russians his Social Security number, the PIN to his ATM card, the spot where he hides the extra key to the White House (under the flowerpot), and the name of his wife’s ob-gyn.
If only Obama were, in the words of Ahmadinejad, an “amateur” and “inexperienced.” His pattern of helping our worst enemies and dissing our allies suggests far more dangerous and sinister motives. His policies reflected his view that American power is a problem in the world, not a solution. He has sought to reduce it at every turn, from signing bad treaties with Russia that severely constrain our ability to defend ourselves to disclosing the particulars of our nuclear weapons to banning the development of new nuclear weapons. American power is something to be limited and ultimately reduced to inconsequentiality. And American retreat is to be carried out with all deliberate speed.
Better Red Than Dead II: Hu’s on First
* * *
On a frigid day in mid-February 2010, a quiet, unassuming man slipped into the White House. Wearing simple robes and slippers, hands clasped before him, he humbly prepared to meet the Leader of the Free World. He was supposed to have had this meeting months before but was told at the time that Obama had a scheduling conflict. With that dis, Obama became the first president since 1991 to ice the Dalai Lama.
Obama sacrificed His Holiness—a gentle, spiritual man who has done nothing but peacefully champion the rights of the Tibetan people held under the jackboot of the Chinese communists—because Obama wanted to schmooze the Chinese to keep buying our debt to float his record deficit spending and to get them to cooperate on tougher sanctions on I
ran. Obama refused to share a cup of tea with the Dalai Lama, at least until he had the chance to meet with the Chinese first.
This was a major reversal for Obama who, during the 2008 campaign, called on Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics over the violent Chinese suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Tibet. Bush, by the way, gave the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. When Obama blew off His Holiness, there wasn’t a peep of protest from human rights groups, leftists who say they fight for human rights, or Richard Gere.
After His Holiness finally did get his meeting with Obama, he was escorted out a side door of the White House, past towering piles of smelly garbage. As he walked by the filth, Joe Biden emerged from the trash heap and said, “Hey, Mr. Lama! I loved it when you were reincarnated as Brad Pitt in Seven Years in Tibet.” The Chinese commies must have gotten a hearty chuckle at the sight of their nemesis negotiating his way past bags of empty pizza boxes, used paper towels, and what looked like an old bedspread.
The Russians saw Obama’s anti-Americanism when he caved on the European missile defense shield, the Iranians saw it when he kept throwing olive branches at them, and the rest of the world saw it when they got repeated apologies for American power and action. The message they all got was that this president could be rolled with his own anti-Americanism and that sometimes he’ll even preemptively surrender, as he did with the Dalai Lama.
In mid-April 2010, Obama attended the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC. As he approached Hu Jintao, the Chinese president and the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, he did the Obama Move. He bowed. The bow to Hu came after a string of previous Obama bows: to the Saudi king, the Japanese emperor, and (my favorite) the mayor of Tampa, Florida. Other lesser-known bows included to Stevie Wonder, Andrea Bocelli, Big Bird, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, and King Friday XIII from Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. I guess Obama has a thing for bowing to questionable dignitaries and puppets. He bows so much, Barry should just walk around life in a constant bow. Could you imagine him delivering a State of the Union address bent forward, ass in the air? For his grand finale, he could turn around and once again lead from behind.
Hu looked completely baffled and slightly amused at the sight of the president of the United States and supposed champion of freedom bowing before him. Of course, he read it as American impotence while Obama thought he was signaling a new humility that would quickly translate into cooperation.
Not so fast. The Chinese proceeded to join the Russians in opposing every major attempt we and the Europeans made at the United Nations to sanction Iran over its nuclear program. Without fanfare, Hu blew Obama off. In fact, before the Chinese leader left Washington, a reporter asked him what he had told Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Jintao turned slowly to the journalist and answered, “I said, ‘Mr. President: F@&% HU!’”
In the spring of 1993, I traveled with my then boss, President Nixon, to China. Seeing Asia for the first time with the man who had changed the face of that region—and indeed the world—was extraordinary. As we took a boat ride around the outskirts of Shanghai, Nixon gazed with astonishment at the hundreds of high-rises and endless construction projects. He gestured toward the Chinese landscape of ambition and said, “None of this would have been possible without our opening in 1972.”
Over the past few decades, China has gone from being an important but secondary concern for the United States to being an important and primary one. When Nixon made his triumphant touchdown in Beijing in 1972, there was only one thing that brought the United States and China together: the growing strategic power of the Soviet Union and its threat to the global balance of power.
Today, the relationship is much more complex and nuanced. China’s stunningly rapid economic rise and its growing military assertiveness have made it more of a competitor than a strategic partner. There is a debate raging within China between those who argue for a “peaceful rise” and those who believe China should lay claim to superpower status and directly challenge the United States. As the two sides battle it out in China, they are united on one goal: to surpass America as the number one economy in the world. In mid-2011, the International Monetary Fund asserted that China will accomplish that by 2016. As the communists’ version of managed capitalism spurs China’s rise, Beijing believes that America is in irreversible decline thanks to its extreme debt and profligate ways. Every time top Chinese officials have met with Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Treasury Secretary Geithner, or other U.S. officials, they have never missed an opportunity to scold them over our spending and debt levels and the dangers of inflation. And they’re right.
The Chinese are hardly angels, however. They keep their currency undervalued, which has sent the U.S. trade deficit with China skyrocketing and hurt American jobs. China also doles out subsidies to state industries and encourages the theft of intellectual property, both of which also give Chinese goods hugely unfair advantages.
Whenever Obama, Clinton, or Geithner complains about these economic maneuvers, Hu listens politely, makes a note to discuss them with his politburo, and then heads back to Beijing to continue business as usual. Economic tricks and shady moves have produced explosive economic growth. The Chinese aren’t about to abandon them just because Obama flashes his toothy grin, Hillary promises a schmoozefest with Bill, or Geithner offers a free tax-avoidance tutorial.
For the Chinese, one of their major concerns is the value of their holdings of U.S. assets. Our largest foreign creditor, they hold over $1 trillion of our debt. If they were to stop buying our debt or sold off significant amounts of it, we’d be screwed. They’re worried about potential losses from a rapid sell-off in Treasuries, so they’ve been looking for Team Obama to reassure them that U.S. debt remains safe. The Chinese received lip service from the administration about the security of our debt, even as they’ve watched Obama pile on over $5 trillion more of it.
As they worry about the safety of their U.S. assets, the Chinese also know that holding so much of our debt gives them enormous leverage over us. As one high-ranking Chinese military official put it in late 2010, it’s about “economic warfare.” Our debt has gotten so astronomical that in fairly short order, the interest alone that we will be paying to Beijing will fund the entire People’s Liberation Army. So get this: we borrow money from the Chinese to finance our debt, then pay them back with interest, which they then use to fund their ever increasingly aggressive military. Never before has a major power funded the rise of its successor.
Meanwhile, as China’s economic strength has grown, so has its strategic power and willingness to flex it. China has become increasingly assertive in the South China, East China, and Yellow Seas, where the U.S. fleet operates. It has also issued claims of sovereignty over disputed areas, provoking serious conflicts, including with our close ally Japan over fish-rich islands. It has let its client state, North Korea, run wild, attacking our ally South Korea twice since 2009 in armed conflicts that resulted in the deaths of dozens of South Korean soldiers and civilians.
Furthermore, China has been engaged in a military buildup not entirely unlike the Soviet one that had Deng Xiaoping so panicked in 1972. Today, Beijing is building new aircraft carriers to dominate the Pacific as well as global waters. China has been dispatching ships to harass offshore oil and gas explorations conducted by Vietnam and the Philippines while claiming vast swaths of mineral-and resource-rich areas for itself. It is developing a new ballistic missile capability. In 2011, it tested a new stealth fighter jet. China continues to proliferate nuclear weapons, technology, and expertise to villains such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and Pakistan. And it spearheads crippling cyber attacks aimed at our military and commercial interests.
At the same time, Obama set out to accelerate American decline through unilateral disarmament. From the outset, he intended to slash defense spending, even while the nation is still at war. In January 2012, he announced a major military “restructuring,” a eup
hemism for “evisceration.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta looked like he was passing a gallstone when he announced Obama’s plan to slash defense spending by $489 billion over ten years, including cutting troop levels by half a million men and women, canceling about fifty major weapons programs, and bagging the five-decades-old policy of maintaining the ability to fight two wars in different theaters at once.
Obama’s defense cuts were an eager jump start on the automatic sequestration of Pentagon funding that’s set to kick in in January 2013 thanks to the super committee’s failure to agree on spending cuts. That called for the automatic reduction of the defense budget by $650 billion over ten years. Further defense cuts would leave us dangerously vulnerable. Obama went on to announce plans to cut our nuclear arsenal by 80 percent (far beyond the reductions required in New START), leaving us with fewer operational warheads than China.
Defense analysts warn that if the deeper cuts are allowed to occur, the Marine Corps will shrink to its smallest force in fifty years, the Army will be reduced to pre-9/11 levels, the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters and bombers than in 1990, and the Navy may lose one or two aircraft-carrier battle groups and have its overall fleet down to pre–World War One levels. Missile defense plans are likely to be delayed, making our allies and us more vulnerable to the growing ballistic missile threat. And Panetta told Congress that big defense cuts would mean troop reductions, costing up to 1.5 million jobs and adding 1 percentage point to the already astronomical unemployment rate.
What the (Bleep) Just Happened? Page 31