Credible Nuclear Deterrence

Credible Nuclear Deterrence

       During the Bush Administration, America pursued a policy of prevention, which dragged us into two expensive wars that were detrimental to substantial treasury funds and life. While I am critical of aspects of the execution of these two wars, I cannot be sure that either war was a mistake because I live in world where those two wars occurred and I still am alive. While the Iraq and Afghanistan wars tested relations with allies, they also served to assert the United States of America's justified leadership position and the delegation of the United Nations to a secondary forum for diplomatic dialogue and policy formation. The truth is, Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq was brought to an end, and the transfer of power to his sons Uday and Qusay Hussein was prevented. While the CIA has suggested that Saddam's weapons programs were not nearly as far along as the Bush Administration's thought, and that instead misread Saddam's bluff to deter Iran, the fact remains that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Israeli's had already destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactors in a previous air strike. Saddam had a history of belligerent aggressive military action, including his invasion of Kuwait, that understandably marked him as a rogue leader with weapons of mass destruction and contacts with terrorist organizations. The attack convinced Iran to halt its nuclear program and Libya to give up its nuclear warheads. Our efforts in Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power and facilitated the decapitation of core Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all now Democracies and have all the opportunities to build prosperous and free countries. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to be a serious problem as Iran has renewed its Uranium program, making concerted efforts to negotiate for a peaceful nuclear energy program. Syria spiraled into a bloody, violent and chaotic civil war where within Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons and campaigns of intense violence to combat rebels varying from secular democratic reformers to Al-Qaeda affiliates. Russia has been aggressive in blocking UN security measures to respond to crisis in Syria, simply because Syria is a high paying client for Russian made weapons and because Assad's regime shelters Russia's only Naval base in the Mediterranean.

    The Obama Administration has consistently supported democratic transition within Russian Satellite states. America has sought to support moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army to help facilitate the collapse of the mutual enemy, Bashar Assad, and to help be sure that in his fall, moderate elements will come to power as opposed to Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists. America has transitioned from preventive policy to a deterrent policy in its dealings with Iran that it needs to bolster by providing Barack Obama congressional “authorization to use force as necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other chemicals and biological weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist organizations or nations likely to use them against America or our Allies.”

     When Barack Obama made the decision to use Naval Destroyers to launch tomahawk missiles to devastate Bashar Assad's chemical weapons and the units that had mobilized the chemical weapons usage he made the correct decision. He had drawn a line not to be crossed, and when it was crossed he sought to enforce the credibility of his previous threat. While the credibility of Barack Obama's decision brought the Syrians and Russians to the negotiating table, Congresses' decision to rebuff Barack Obama's request, showed Russia the indecisiveness of Congress which was perceived by our enemies as weakness. The fact that there were some Al-Qaeda aligned fighters among the rebels allowed for critics of military action to present the rebels as terrorists and our actions against them to be assistance for terrorists or the provision of aid to an enemy. This cannot be farther from the truth, of the well over 100,000 soldiers fighting on the side of rebels in Syria, only around 7,000 are active members of either Al-Nursa or ISIS, that have had strategic ties to Al-Qaeda. Expediting the collapse of Bashar Assad will also help expedite the defeat of Al-Nursa and Al-Qaeda as Assad's command of the military is transferred to an acceptable person to both the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army and the Baathist regime. Tomahawk missile strikes are necessary because the Chemical weapons pose a threat in either the hands of Bashar Assad or in the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels. The diplomatic agreements to remove the weapons have been somewhat effective, however every shipment puts those weapons in risk of falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda while Bashar Assad's regime has continued to use chemical weapons against civilians since the agreement was made and Bashar has been defiant in showing any willingness to demolish the capacity to create future chemical weapons.

      When America made the deal with Syria, the Obama Administration shortly after made a deal with Iran that is adequate for the needs of American Security, but unacceptable to many Israelis and continues to be tenuous in its enforcement and extension beyond the original 6 months agreement. These deals can suffice, but America needs to heavy its hands to enforce them, something the authorization proposal above will demonstrate in an unequivocal and clear manner. America needs to commit to deterrence, telling our rivals that any breaches of our agreements with either Syria or Iran will bear consequences, specifically, surgical strikes on facilities where wmds and materials for the production of wmds are stored and made. The usage of such a clear, enforceable and firm deterrent policy will make it clear to Russia, that the light is Red in Ukraine. Any Russian movements into Ukraine will prompt retaliatory action to other regimes of value to Russia. America is willing to wage war to protect an acceptable peace but would prefer to deescalate the situation and will support the payment of back debts to Russia and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia by Ukraine, as the situation on the ground stabilizes and Russia pulls its troops back from the Ukrainian border. The European Union should strongly consider obliging Ukraine's request for a peace keeping mission. America's “authorization to use force as necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other chemicals and biological weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist organizations or nations likely to use them against America or our Allies” should not be viewed as intention to wage an eminent strike; rather, a reminder that the current agreements with Iran and Syria need to be strictly adhered to without excuses or exception.