The Obama Doctrine: Apologize, Bend over… Oops!

Most post-WWII presidents have put forth doctrines designed to sum up their foreign policy challenges and solutions.

The Truman Doctrine: Support capitalism and fight against communism around the globe.

The Eisenhower Doctrine: Provide economic or military aid to any country that is being threatened by armed aggression from another state.

The Kennedy Doctrine: Contain communism at any cost.

The Nixon Doctrine: Pursue peace through a partnership with American allies.

The Carter doctrine: Use military force if necessary to defend our national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Reagan Doctrine: Oppose the global influence of the former Soviet Union.

Bush 41: Maintain peace by maintaining stability.

Bush 43 Doctrine: Secure the U.S.  from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups. Take preventive action when necessary.

Clinton did not come up with a clear doctrinal statement but, in retrospect, one can sum it up in a few words: Selective intervention against genocide.

Obama has followed in the footsteps of his slick Democrat predecessor.  He is a man of many words that mean little.  However, his actions during his first months in office are pitiful and scary.

Obama seems to believe that we are to blame for most of the world’s problems and if we just apologize often enough and sit around the table with ruthless dictators and thugs, they will like us and put aside their evil plots.  Then, all heads of state, great and small, can engage in a giant kumbaya moment and we’ll all be friends.

Obama tried his best to overlook the brutal and  shameful acts being committed against the people of Iran by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini  until that became untenable.  Even now, he still wants to do everything possible to maintain cordial relations with them.  Also, he has done his best to ignore the sand currently being kicked in his eyes by North Korea’s Kim Jong-il.

Most troubling is Obama’s plan to slash $1.4 billion from our rudimentary missile defense system – a 32 percent reduction of what the Pentagon said was required just six months ago – just as North Korea is testing the Taepodong-2, which could reach the Hawaiian Islands.

Last month, Pyongyang tested a Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb.  When fully deployed the Taepodong-2 missile could also reach Alaska and California, although most experts believe that is three years away.  In a couple more years, both North Korea and Iran could have missiles capable of  reaching our mid section.

In response to the North Korean threats, Secretary of Defense Gates sent terminal-phase mobile missile interceptors to Hawaii and said the ground-based interceptor missiles in California and Alaska were ready.

Let’s put this in proper perspective:  There are three phases to an ICBM flight path: the boost phase, the trajectory phase and the terminal phase.  Theater interceptor missiles in the Pacific Ocean are designed to target the boost phase but do not work against long-range missiles headed in our direction.   However, the ability to shoot down a missile in the boost phase would deter a nation from lobbing a missile carrying a nuclear payload toward our nation or one of our allies because that payload would explode over the country that sets off the launch.

These are the very programs Obama wants to scrap!  His excuse is that he wants to make sure they work properly before continuing support for the program.  Earth to Obama: Without funding, we can’t get them to work!

The ground-based system targets the mid phase and is the one experts say would be most likely to shoot down a North Korean missile.   Shooting down a missile in the terminal phase would likely mean that nuclear material would detonate in our atmosphere which would do severe damage to this country.

So, just how reliable is the ground-based system?  In reality, there has been very little testing due to budget constraints.   The system has had eight successful intercepts in 13 attempts since 1999 or a 60 percent success rate.

Gates said we are in “a good position” should it become necessary to protect American territory.  People to Gates:  Define good.

On May 20, Charles McQueary, the Pentagon’s top weapons evaluator for the last three years, gave a more candid statement on the ground-based system’s ability to stop a North Korean missile on his last day in office.  He said we have a “reasonable chance” of an intercept.   He put it at “likely” rather than ‘highly likely.’

Those statements do not inspire confidence.

So, what if it becomes necessary and what if, God forbid, we fail?  That brings us to the final phase of what appears to be the Obama Doctrine – Oops!

2 thoughts on “The Obama Doctrine: Apologize, Bend over… Oops!

  1. Jane,

    In the body of your essay today with respect to a ‘boost’ phase missile defense you say that the President wants “to make sure they work properly before continuing support for the program.”

    While this comment may be unrelated I think it is fair. If the administration is willing to curtail funding on missile defense until proof of reliability and proper function can be validated, why must we commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to do 100% nationalized health care right away without even trying to create and monitor a small version of this program to see how well it works?


  2. 60% is good enough???

    Let’s say the probability of arriving at your destination on your next airline flight was 60%, is that good enough?

    What if your police force had guns that only worked 60% of the time, would you feel safe.

    In matters of life and death matters, you target for 100%


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s