In catching up on some reading, I read a short article, “Strategic Alaska.” (It has nothing to do with electoral college campaign strategy, but military strategy.) It seemed related to some recent news.
With Obama becoming President-elect, Russia announced a plan to deploy missiles on the borders of its Central European neighbors. This of course raises a question about Obama’s commitment to the former communist states of Central Europe, and of his commitment to missile defense.
Like he did on most issues, he fudged as he spoke to different audiences at different times as he spoke about missile defense. He was in favor of missile defense, because of countries like North Korea and Iran. But he was also in favor of cutting the defense budget and “unproven missile defense systems.” …. Russia is not North Korea or Iran.
Given that, and his request for Georgia to exercise restraint in the face of a Russian invasion, I’d say the Central European countries that want freedom from Russian domination are in a tough spot…..
But Russia is not just putting the pressure on small Central European states. The article, “Strategic Alaska,” said Russia is increasingly testing U.S. responses to its strategic patrols. Russia’s Gen. Zelin said he plans to have as many as 30 per month along the U.S. border. The AFA article includes a picture of an F-22 intercepting a Russian Bear bomber. (The bomber still has its tail painted with a Red Star, some 17 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.) Here’s another picture showing a Raptor when it was first used to intercepted Bear a year ago.
When Sarah Palin mentioned the strategic importance of Alaska and her awareness of strategic issues, it didn’t seem to be treated seriously by the media. But this article notes, “Alaska’s strategic Arctic location is viewed as useful for missile defense, air defense, and force deployments to locations ranging from Europe to East Asia. . . . Forces could arrive in Europe faster than if flying from the East Coast of the US.” Alaskan forces are a necessary part of any contingency plan for the Pacific region and C-17s from Alaska aided in quake relief for China.
And there’s even an “unproven” 49th Missile Defense Battalion stationed in Alaska, manned by Alaska National Guardsmen at Fort Greely Alaska.
Obama’s campaign speeches leave me wondering not only about the security of Central European states, but also about whether he will break with the Democrat opposition to missile defense for the U.S. That’s not likely, and as Reuter’s reports, missile defense “is widely viewed as bait for Obama’s budget scalpel.” So will he dismantle the real defense of Alaska’s Fort Greely? or will he push for reliance on ineffective international agreements like Democrats have done since before Jimmy Carter?
I don’t know why no one is commenting on your post. Discussing these kinds of issues is not my forte but I am very concerned about what Obama will do about our defense, whether he is an idealistic democrat or a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Hey Barb,
Since Vietnam, the Democrats have been the anti-war party, and nothing invites attack like weakness. So there is more reason for concern. But on the other hand, we’ve not been attacked since 9/11 and that establishes some momentum. Bush has set the bar for Obama. If Obama wants to be re-elected, he has to meet the standard. He can’t allow an attack either; he can’t undermine the war on terror. The buck stops with the President. He may not be as aggressive, or share the same long-term view as Bush, but he’d have a tough time being re-elected if anything related to a new attacked was traced to a change in the anti-terror policy.
ABM defense is more a long-term investment than the war on terror. But defense still needs long-term investment and vision…. Momentum dies; friction and hostile policy will be at work.
Russia has tested an ICBM by launching it into the Pacific. That reminds me of a test launch the old Soviet Union did into the Pacific. It was planned to land just beyond Hawaii, until the U.S. protested. The recent launch was said to be Russia’s first into the Pacific. So they’re distinguishing between old Russia and new Russia, but then again the new Russia is flying bombers with the old Red Star….. Power politics remains the same. And even The Dream of socialism remains, but Moscow’s not able to portray itself as the agent for bringing about worldwide socialism.