Obama and the missile shield

By Jennifer J. Foster

President-elect Barack Obama’s first foreign policy test is shaping up to be his commitment to the United States’ plans for a missile defense shield in Europe.

It began on the heels of Obama’s victory last week with the introductory/congratulatory phone calls Obama had with various world leaders. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev released a statement after his conversation with Obama last week that both leaders agree an “early bilateral meeting” should be arranged, according to the Associated Press.

Not to be outdone, Polish President Lech Kaczynski posted a story on his web site saying that Obama had “emphasized the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military cooperation between our countries. He also said that the missile-defense project would continue.“

The Russians reacted angrily, causing the Obama camp to clarify and/or revise whatever earlier remarks Obama had made to Kaczynski:

“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable,“ Obama senior foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said.

Well, the Russians sense blood in the water and are putting on the full-court press to scuttle the portion of the missile shield project that would be based in Poland; meanwhile, Poland is left in the lurch while the president-to-be tries to find his way from candidate to commander-in-chief.

As he’s doing so, he’ll be getting a visit from Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, the soon-to-be-leaving head of the U.S. missile defense agency. If it’s “workable” technology Obama seeks, Obering says he can deliver.

Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said Wednesday that missile technology is developed much further than some may believe it to be.

“Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet. The technology has caught up,“ Obering said Wednesday.

Although not mentioning the president-elect or any of his transition team by name, Obering said that many critics are “behind the curve.“

“What we have discovered is, a lot of those folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated in terms of the program. They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 timeframe,“ Obering said.

“We’ve come a hell of a long way since 2000. So our primary objective will be to educate them on what we have accomplished.“

Hmm. Guess we don’t have to wonder about Obering’s opinion on this whole dust-up. Translation: If they’re waiting for the technology to come around before they commit to the missile shield, the president-elect and his advisers don’t know what they’re talking about.

Here’s the problem with Obama’s handling of this issue: Plans for the missile defense shield have been an integral part of the U.S.‘s ability to develop relationships with allies in Eastern Europe, especially in the face of Russia’s rise under Putin (and now, his hand-picked successor, Medvedev). In addition, and more importantly, the missile defense shield is an integral part of protecting U.S. assets and troops in the Middle East, especially in the face of an increasingly hostile Iran (which, coincidentally, announced yesterday that it had test-fired a long-range surface-to-surface missile capable of striking Israel).

Here’s the thing: If a missile fired from Iran can hit Israel, it can hit anything in between—including U.S. troops in Iraq. The range also puts U.S. interests in Kuwait at the mercy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s good humor.

These are just some of the reasons why the missile defense shield cannot be a negotiable issue for Barack Obama. He has to show strength from the beginning on this point; any equivocation will be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and the Russians will assume—as they are already demonstrating with their most recent statement on it—that they can bully him into giving up the Eastern European portion of the project.

Doing so would be disastrous for U.S. allies and interests, let alone our ability to protect our troops stationed in that region of the world.

Obama kept voters happy throughout the last 21 months by treading carefully, when at all, into the finer points of any of his proposals. He stuck with generalities and almost never committed himself to a position. This is going to pay off for him in domestic policy, because he was able to keep his options open. He doesn’t have to produce specifics in policy because he took great pains to avoid specifics in politics.

But Obama is no longer a candidate. He is soon to be the commander-in-chief. And the obscure, guard-both-sides-of-the-fence statements that he’s been so adept at using throughout the campaign will usher in weakness and disaster if they are employed in dealings with foreign leaders.

Obama can’t play both sides of the fence on the missile defense shield. Either he supports it, and he’ll work with the Russians to try to make them comfortable with it, or he doesn’t.

Of course, the possibility exists that there is nothing we can do to assuage the Russians’ concerns. It’s entirely possible that they are just looking for something to get mad about. Giving in to keep them happy just to avoid confrontation (they had a word for that in the 1930s, as I recall) will simply end up weakening the United States and endangering our people. And then the Russians will probably soon find something else to be mad about, anyway.

The missile defense shield is the first test of Barack Obama’s foreign policy acumen.

Our allies and our enemies alike are waiting to see if he’ll pass.

Stevens running behind in Alaska

By Jennifer J. Foster

Think the tightening U.S. Senate race in Minnesota is the closest race in the country?

Think again.

As an update to the watch we’ve been keeping on the still-outstanding U.S. Senate races, incumbent GOP Sen. Ted Stevens has fallen behind Democratic challenger and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich—by three votes—as officials continue to count early and absentee ballots in that state.

Ramifications in this race are huge, either way. If Begich wins, Senate Democrats find themselves with 58 votes—two shy of the filibuster-proof magic number of 60. If Stevens wins, he could resign or be removed by the Senate Ethics Committee, setting up a special election to fill his seat. Sarah Palin has said she would consider running for the seat, but she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer yesterday that she is “not one to appoint myself or a member of my family to take the place of any vacancy.“

Election 2008 is far from over.

... And my friends thought I’d go through a withdrawal period after voting day last week!

Palin’s problem: Not enough TV?

By Jennifer J. Foster

Sarah Palin appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live last night and offered a hint of an explanation for why her image went sour after the honeymoon period when she was named John McCain’s vice presidential nominee on the eve of the GOP convention in August.

She didn’t do enough Katie Couric-like interviews.

The Couric interview on CBS was seen the most damaging of the trio she did when emerging from a veritable media blackout. Fairly or not, the interviews portrayed Palin as aloof and incompetent; they sowed seeds of doubt in the minds of voters who were just getting to know her, and that doubt set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from the King interview:

King: Should you have not done the Katie Couric interview?

Palin: Sure, I should have done the Katie Couric interview. Her questions were fair. ... Obviously, being a bit annoyed with some of the questions, my annoyance shows through. I am who I am, though, and I call it like I see it. Some of those questions, you know, regarding what do I read up in Alaska, were, to me, a bit irrelevant.

But there was nothing off-base, unfair about it. Certainly, I should have done the interview. To attribute that interview to any kind of negativity in the campaign or a downfall in the campaign, I think it’s ridiculous. In retrospect, in hindsight, I wish I would had more opportunities or that we would have seized more opportunities to speak more to the American people through the media.

King: Why didn’t you?

Palin: I didn’t call the shots on a lot that strategy. But I’m not going to look backwards and point fingers of blame in regard to the strategy. And just suffice it to say, it’s very, very important for candidates to be able to speak to the American voter.

King: Katie Couric, by the way, said last night that she thinks you should keep your head down, work really hard and learn about governing before contemplating a presidential run. What are your thoughts about her saying you should learn about governing?

Palin: I’d say thank you, Katie Couric, for your advice. I won’t reciprocate in giving her any advice, that’s for sure, because I have respect for her and the profession that she is in. I would have greater respect, though, for the entire profession called mainstream media if we could have great assurance that there’s fairness, that there’s objectivity throughout the reporting world. ...

I started out as a journalist. It’s that important to me that that cornerstone of our democracy is given the credence and credibility that it deserves.

King: But you do admit you should have done more (interviews)?

Palin: I would love to have done more. Yes. Yes.

Two things are obvious here:

One, Palin would have run a far different campaign than the one the McCain campaign charted for her. Two—and this one is ironic—Sarah Palin doesn’t have any patience for incompetence.

Need more proof? King asked her two questions that beg for the incompetent label; look at her responses.

King: Were you very sad when you learned the result (of the election)?

Palin: You know, sad because I knew had hard that our ticket had worked. Again, I’m convinced today, as much as I was along the campaign trail, that John McCain is a true American hero and he does have solutions that need to be…

No, Larry; I was thrilled, actually. More time to make moose soup.

Come on, Larry King. Fifty years of questioning guests, and you can’t come up with a better question than this?

King: Something all mothers fear, though, is the knowledge that her daughter is pregnant. Was that very hard for you to take?

Palin: Well, what do you think, Larry? Of course.

You know, I looked at her and thought—and I thought, Bristol, honey, you’re going to have to grow up really fast. She is a strong and kind-hearted young woman. She’s going to make a great mom. She is very strong. She’s going to be just fine.

But Bristol has an opportunity, at this point, also, to reach out to other young American women and let them know that these are absolutely less than ideal circumstances that she or any other unwed teenage mother are in. And it is not something to glamorize.

What do you think? Another stupid question.

I’ll have more on the remaking of Sarah Palin in my column on Saturday.