Tag: Peace through Strength
Not exactly ideal when talking about an atomic agreement that involves angry, ambitious ayatollahs and the world’s most destructive weapons.
They falsely claim that it’s time to cut America’s nuclear arsenal even further, that the US nuclear arsenal is “excess”, and that the US should rely on “diplomacy, economic sanctions, and conventional deterrence” instead!
Matlock also claims the US did not really win the Cold War or cause the USSR’s collapse. Furthermore, he claims in his book that Ronald Reagan’s sole (and secondary) contribution to ending the Cold War was supposedly abandoning the hawkish policies of his first term.
Matlock blames Moscow’s hostility solely on the US, claiming that the US invited it by bombing Serbia without UN Security Council Approval in 1999, invading Iraq without UNSC approval in 2003, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic Republics, Romania, and Bulgaria; with supposed “plans” for US bases in the Baltics and the Balkans; by somehow “supporting” the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia; and by passing the Magnitsky Act, designed to punish Russian officials who violate human rights.
Rand also says the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia over Ukraine” because Ukraine has, for a long time, been in Russia’s sphere of influence. “The Ukraine has a long history of either being a part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”
Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.
This is utter garbage, coming of course from a strident liberal who orchestrated President Clinton’s disastrous defense cuts and who is still lying about defense spending to this day (and has repeatedly been rebuked by me for doing so). 4% of GDP is a very modest amount. The US spent a much LARGER percentage of its GDP on defense throughout all of the Cold War except FY1948 and the Carter years, yet, the economy didn’t collapse. Under President Reagan, the US spent 6% of GDP on defense, yet, under his presidency, the US economy expanded rapidly, by a size equivalent to that of the economy of West Germany at the time.
A President Romney would not appease Putinist Russia, sign unequal treaties obligating only the US to cut its nuclear deterrent, give up missile defense deployment plans for no Russian reciprocation, stand silent about Putin’s human rights violations and intimidation of Russia’s Central European neighbors like Poland, or about Russia’s repeated usage of natural gas as a weapon of intimidation.
The US Constitution is designed in such way that if both parties control a branch of the federal government, or if control of the Congress is split between the two parties, then, as Glenn Kessler rightly noted last year – neither side can forever insist on nonnegotiable demands.
Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to spend a full 4% of GDP, let alone 830 bn per year, on defense. It may very well avert sequestration (which Republicans and Democrats agree is a disastrous and dumb idea), and a Republican-controlled Congress might pass a defense budget slightly larger than the one proposed Obama. But that’s the best-case scenario the DOD can hope for.