Obama's Dangerous Strategic Policy

There's a lot happening in nuclear policy and strategic issues this morning. LAT has the background analysis on the new START treaty, "U.S., Russia Sign Pact to Cut Nuclear Arsenals."

And Matthew Continetti has excerpts from Sarah Palin's speech today at SRLC, "Sarah Palin on the Obama Doctrine: Advance Copy":

In foreign policy, we’ve got the makings of the Obama Doctrine: coddling our enemies while alienating allies.

The administration eased sanctions on Cuba and sided with Chavez against Honduran democracy. They won’t bring up human rights with China because, quote, 'we know what they are going to say.' They offer tepid sanctions on North Korea and 'gold stars and cookies' for the Sudanese President. They send letters to Iranian mullahs but can barely muster a word of support for the Green Movement seeking freedom and women’s rights in Iran!

And President Obama, with all that vast nuclear expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president, has accomplished nothing to date with Iran or North Korea.

Meanwhile, this administration alienates our friends. They treated Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai poorly and acted surprised when he reacted in kind. And they escalated a minor zoning decision into a major breach with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.

Folks, someone needs to remind the President: Jerusalem is not a settlement. Israel is our friend. And the critical nuclear concerns of our time are North Korea, who has nuclear weapons, and Iran, who wants them.

So, 'yes we can' kowtow to our enemies and publicly criticize our allies.

Yes, we can. But someone ought to tell the President and the Left that just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

Plus, Charles Krauthammer devastates Obama's revised nuclear strategy of limited use, "Nuclear Posturing, Obama-Style":

Under President Obama's new policy ... however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

More at the link.

And for background, see "Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms."

And here's the Pentagon's official "Nuclear Posture Review."

See also, Michelle's blog, and Memeorandum.

CARTOON CREDIT: Mike Lester.