“If our goal is a world without
nuclear weapons and the Russians are willing to reduce arsenals along
with the United States, exactly whose nuclear weapons would such a
system defend us against?”

Partisan to the nth degree is how the 111th Congress may well be remembered. The idea that the party out of power would resist, obstruct, delay and avoid addressing anything that could potentially benefit the party in power is not new. Constant resistance began after the election of President Bill Clinton and has continued unabated since then, with the exception of the brief moment immediately after September 11, 2001. Like the terrorist attacks of Al-Qaeda, foreign affairs have had a tendency to unite Republicans and Democrats. This area of common ground seems to have eroded into the stream of polarization as well. It has been particularly noticeable with the culmination of the first phases of President Obama’s initiative on nuclear disarmament.

A year ago, many Iowans thought ratification of the START treaty by a two thirds majority of the Senate would be a slam dunk. We don’t think that any more. After the 2008 election there were 57, then 58 Democratic Senators, two independents and enough moderate Republicans to assure passage of what appeared to be a non-controversial treaty with a large majority. START, simply stated, says reduce the number of nuclear weapons between two states who have more than 20,000 of them from way too many to a lower number that could still destroy the earth.

Instead, under the leadership of Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a straw man argument has been created that asserts that the new treaty would hinder development of a missile defense system. Set aside the fact that both Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have unequivocally said that START does not hinder missile defense. If our goal is a world without nuclear weapons and the Russians are willing to reduce arsenals along with the United States, against whose nuclear weapons would such a system defend us?

Should the Republican phalanx decide to break long enough to debate START ratification, then these senators oppose it at their own peril. It is one thing to obstruct health care legislation, presidential appointments and other domestic initiatives and quite another to oppose improving the national security. They may be playing with fire. Republicans seem to be divided into two camps.

In one camp, there is George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger and others who have not only endorsed START, but see it as a small yet critical step towards a larger effort to reduce the nuclear threat. Central to their support is a major shift in their thinking about the risk of nuclear weapons in a post-9/11 world. There is growing, bipartisan consensus among security experts that while nuclear weapons once provided security, they now present the ultimate liability. As they see it, the nuclear status quo is at risk of disintegrating. The only way to avoid proliferation is to embrace a new nuclear security agenda that would reduce existing arsenals, secure vulnerable material, limit fissile material production, and curtail weapons development by banning test explosions> Strengthening international collaboration is essential to retarding the growth of proliferation. This is President Obama's agenda.

In another camp are John Bolton, Charles Krauthammer and Sarah Palin, whose insatiable desire to criticize the president often leads them to put political attacks ahead of sober consideration of our nation's security interests. An example of this was Krauthammer's recent attacks on the President's nuclear security summit. He was so eager to portray the president as having failed to address the threats of Iran near term, he failed to recognize the merits of the larger strategy of developing support from Russia and China to challenge Iran. The Republican Senators need to decide which camp into which they will muster. Their silence indicates they may be waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.

Whether it is possible for Republicans to consider President Obama’s national security initiative and its nuclear disarmament component on its merits remains to be seen. Administration critics are flat out wrong in opposing the START treaty. If Senators oppose START, they would stand outside the mainstream consensus of national security experts. When legislators oppose the interests of the American people on national security, they do so at their peril.

~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace. E-mail Paul
Deaton