Would you want to be President and be WRONG on that assessment? THat is the issue any American leader must assess. The last thing a US leader can be seen to his own people is weak. It took Jimmy Carter's presidency right down the toilet. God knows his inept handling of the economy had him down in the polls but his mishandling Iran and the hostage crisis was the nails in his coffin.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Your assessment of the Russians I don't disagree with on paper, but the will to fight or cause trouble in any case is a lot more valid on the side of the Russians and the Iranians. Iran's leadership keeps making noises about attacking Israel just because, and the Russians in their handlling of Chechnya or Georgia have proven they are very willing to flex their muscles, and unlike the US, there is no vigourous opposition holding them in check at home.
I don't think this drawdown is as bad as Tony fears, for Secretary Gates signed off on it and he had the same job for Bush, so unlike most of Obama's appointments, this guy isn't a weak kneed liberal on defense. I do think an effective short range missle system for defense still has value and that is what they have. That said, there was no reason to do this except to give into Putin's whining. As for the talking to the Iranians, they will talk all day, but they will do what they are going to do. Anyone believing otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
As for Poland and the Czechs being against this, I have no idea if the populations at large there are against it as much or not, but I do know this much. If the Russians attacked either tomorrow, who is most likely to be there to put a stop to it or at least come to their aid? It wont be the French, Germans or Italians, it will be the US. There is a reason the Americans resent the NATO nations of Europe not taking a vigourous role in Afghanistan and the like, since it shows an apathy about the defense of NATO members. Poland and the Czechs were a little more onside with the US in the last decade or so....