creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
18 Dec 2014
Pottersville Goes Online

What is it that makes the holiday movie classic "It's a Wonderful Life" feel so ancient? It's the relationships,… Read More.

16 Dec 2014
Charity Versus Panhandling

I'm paying up at this discount store, and the nice woman at the cash register asks me something like, "Do you … Read More.

11 Dec 2014
Do You Vote What You Drink?

Did you know that Democrats drink more than Republicans? Or that they are likelier to choose clear liquors, … Read More.

The Nuclear Threat Is Not a Partisan Issue

Comment

The recently leaked diplomatic cables reveal both Arab and Israeli horror at a nuclear Iran. Last year, Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, evidently told the American ambassador that the world had 18 months or less to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, warning "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage." Bahrain's King Hamad sent a cable saying, "That program must be stopped," and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed said, "Ahmadinejad is Hitler."

With Russia key to slowing Iran's nuclear program, U.S. leaders want the Senate to pass the new arms control treaty without haste. But Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and several fellow Republicans have apparently decided there's never a reason, including national security, to not humiliate President Obama. And so they've chosen to hold up the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

The treaty aims to cut U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons by 30 percent. Importantly, it would give us the ability to verify Russia's strategic nuclear arms, something we haven't been able to do for a year. And very importantly, it would advance international efforts to bar the terrifying prospect of Iran and North Korea becoming significant nuclear powers.

So quick approval of this treaty goes beyond questions of national security. It's about national survival. The terrorist attacks nine years ago were unspeakable, but America could withstand more Sept. 11's. It can't survive one major nuclear attack.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all but blew up at this jaw-dropping act of political opportunism. So high are the stakes that he went public, putting video of his shocked response on his official YouTube page: www.youtube.com/senatorlugar.

"There are 13,300 nuclear weapons aimed at us," Lugar says in a rattled voice, "our cities, our military installations everything we have — 13,300." He goes on to note that "any one of those warheads could obliterate the city of Indianapolis."

Only the most pathological partisanship would turn rapid passage of New START into an unacceptable victory for a president from an opposing party.

The treaty's backers include three former secretaries of state under four Republican presidents. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who took up his post under George W. Bush, joined four former secretaries of defense, three former national security advisers, seven former commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command and the entire U.S. military leadership in supporting the treaty as it was meticulously negotiated.

But as Kyl put it, "given the combination of other work the Senate must do" and the "unresolved issues" of modernizing America's nuclear forces, he didn't think the treaty could be passed in the lame-duck session of Congress.

You wonder what work is more pressing than protecting the United States from nuclear holocaust. You ask why neo-conservatives are hailing Obama's commitment to spend nearly $10 billion in fiscal 2011 alone on improving America's nuclear defenses if modernization is a concern.

As Kyl and others treated this arms control treaty as a political toy — a ball of yarn to be kicked into the next Congess for the kittens to play with — the former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory said he was "stunned" by the sophistication of a North Korean nuclear plant he had just visited. And the maniacal North Korean government attacked a South Korean island, creating a monstrous diplomatic crisis for the United States. This is no time to sap the president's prestige on the world stage.

A harsh question: Is it a betrayal of one's country to jeopardize its security — not because you intend to do it harm, but to weaken a president you don't like? On matters of national security, for certain, the answer is yes.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

0 Comments | Post Comment
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
Dec. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 22 Dec 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 21 Dec 2014
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 21 Dec 2014

7 Jul 2009 Cities Are Back -- but for How Long?

14 Oct 2008 The Price of Extinction

18 Oct 2011 Class Warfare: Q&A