We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal, and it is our duty to follow them.
British Prime Minister Henry John Temple,
Lord Palmerston, in a speech to
the House of Commons, March 1, 1848
IT S NOT OFTEN that we get a glimpse into Barack Obamas mind. In 2008, Samuel Wurzelbacher-A.K.A. Joe the Plumber - fell into one when his question to then-presidential candidate Obama about taxes resulted in the famous spread the wealth around answer, revealing Obamas redistributionist economic beliefs.
And, at the close of his flashy multinational nuclear summit, Barack Obama had another Joe the Plumber moment.
Speaking of Middle Eastern conflicts, Obama said, It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.
Not that America is rightfully proud of its ability to protect ourselves and our allies, to protect freedom, and pursue our interests around the world. Not that we are a force for good. Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.
Not that we will defend our freedom-loving allies from aggression, but when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.
President Obama does not believe we have the right or the obligation to influence other nations, protect our allies, and pursue our interests abroad. After more than a year of reducing the future capabilities of our military and intelligence communities, his administrations actions make it clear that he seeks to end Americas role as a global superpower.
Its wrong to accuse Barack Obama of naivete. The consistency with which he and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have acted to reduce the capability of our armed forces - now and in the future - defines his objective: to reduce America from a superpower to an also-ran, a nation that is incapable of defending its interests or its allies around the world.
He may think of himself as the un-Bush, but in historical context, he is the un-Palmerston. At the top of Obamas agenda is to transform our military and intelligence capabilities from those of a superpower to the claws of a paper tiger.
The proofs are comprehensive.
Casting the Pentagons future not in steel but in glass, Obama and Gates have reduced or eliminated most of the key weapon systems - ranging from the F-22 fighter to the Navys DDG-1000 stealthy combatant ship - which would have maintained the technological superiority that our forces have depended on since Korea to win quickly and decisively on the modern battlefield.
President Obama does not believe
we have the right or the obligation
to influence other nations,
protect our allies, and pursue
our interests abroad.
They are delaying the purchase of the most urgently needed tool for maintaining our superpower abilities - the Air Forces replacement for the Eisenhower-era KC-135 airborne tanker - to allow the makers of the French-made Airbus A330 to compete, despite its physical inability to perform the mission.
They have reduced our missile defense program and abandoned the defense of Europe. They have promised, instead of the anti-missile defenses based in Poland, a sea-based system that they know cannot be deployed in the foreseeable future.
Obama says he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But instead of moving decisively against Irans nuclear ambitions, he has revised our nuclear doctrine to reduce the value of our deterrent and has prevented the modernization of our nuclear arsenal, leaving its effectiveness in doubt.
Obama and his congressional allies want to reengineer the military culture, repealing the Dont Ask, Dont Tell law that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military. He and Gates have already rescinded the rule that prohibited women from serving on submarines. Both of those initiatives will hurt morale and readiness of our forces to fight.
OBAMAS WAR AGAINST THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Nothing will hurt more - or cost more lives sooner - than Obamas war against our intelligence community.
There is insufficient room here to fully explain that war. A few examples suffice.
One of Obamas first acts upon taking office was to ban the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) used successfully on al Qaeda bigs during the Bush administration. That action cut off the single most valuable source of intelligence on terrorist activities. Of the EIT program, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote, What [the terrorist detainees] gave us was worth more than the CIA, NSA, the FBI and our military operations had achieved collectively. By ending the use of the EITs, Obama has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
In pre-confirmation meetings with Republican senators, Attorney General Eric Holder promised he would not seek prosecution of CIA interrogators who had used the EITs. But after a reported profanity-laced screaming match with CIA Director Leon Panetta at the White House, Holder broke that promise.
House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has helped break the bond of trust that must exist between the White House and our spies. Resisting allegations that she had known that waterboarding was being used on al Qaeda terrorists while it was going on in 2002 and 2003, she accused the CIA of lying about briefing her. The CIA subsequently proved it was not lying by releasing summaries of contemporaneous documents. Nevertheless, Pelosi won that battle by refusing to recant her accusation, leading Panetta to write an unprecedented op-ed in The Washington Post.
In it, Panetta said there was an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information. But Obama didnt support Panetta. Pelosis accusation hangs in the air, just like Holders ongoing investigation of CIA interrogators.
These blows to the CIAs morale were not healed. Instead, Obama made it worse by imposing perverse priorities on the intelligence agency. A prime example is his decision to make the study of global warming one of its assigned tasks. On Jan. 4, 2010, The New York Times reported that Obama had revived a program that requires the CIA to collaborate with environmental scientists to study climate change.
The Obama administration insists that the CIA global warming study is free, that it uses only satellite downtime and doesnt detract from the gathering or analysis of real intelligence information. But that contention is, at best, absurd.
Intelligence satellites - each of which costs upwards of $100 million - have a finite life. Every time they are repositioned, they use fuel that cannot be replaced. And every hour a CIA analyst spends examining radar images of a polar bears behind is one less hour spent analyzing information that might reveal where Osama bin Laden is hiding or how close Iran may be to producing a nuclear warhead.
Without the best intelligence and analysis, policy making is mere guesswork. And our intelligence is woefully inadequate.
In August 2006, the Republican staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a special report that severely criticized the CIA and other intelligence agencies for lacking the ability to acquire essential information necessary to make judgments on Irans nuclear weapon program.
