Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

GOP Critics vs. the Pentagon

by Robert G. Gard [contact information]

Published in the Lexington Herald-Leader on May 20, 2010.

A distressing trend has developed in relation to the politicization of U.S. nuclear weapons policy - President Obama is criticized, while Pentagon support for the president is ignored. In short, there is a pattern emerging of selective and misleading outrage, with partisan critics caricaturizing Obama's policies while neglecting to mention or acknowledge that the policies he is advancing enjoy the strong support of the nation's military leadership.

The trend began in April 2009 when Obama delivered a speech in Prague calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that Ronald Reagan had the same objective and gave more than one speech with that theme, Obama was swiftly ridiculed on the right as "naive." The speech created an opening for all U.S. nuclear weapons policy to be similarly attacked in a larger effort to brand negatively the president's policies. These criticisms play politics with our national security and deliberately misrepresent the facts.

When the administration released its Nuclear Posture Review in April, it took no time for Sarah Palin to attack the policy, declaring, "No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today." While Palin went on to further criticize the review, her ridicule of the policy stands in stark contrast to what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said: "The review has the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We believe it provides us and our field commanders the opportunity to better shape our nuclear weapons posture, policies and force structure to meet an ever-changing security environment."

This unfortunate trend has continued with the "New START" treaty. Former Ambassador John Bolton wasted no time assailing the agreement on the pages of National Review. The aim of Bolton's argument was to reinforce the notion that the president was heading off in some utopian new direction. In contrast, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared: "The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership - to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent."

Clearly, it would not serve Bolton's political agenda to describe America's military leadership as "utopian," so their support for the treaty is conveniently ignored. Instead, the issue is crafted into a simplistic caricature of the president to score political points.

Critics like Palin and Bolton may be primarily concerned with rhetorical attacks, but the Senate should take a more thoughtful approach. While the Senate must give its advice and consent with regard to the ratification of treaties, the tradition for 40 years has been to provide strong bipartisan support for arms control and to affirm the judgment of the nation's national security leadership.

Unfortunately, in the hyper-partisan atmosphere that now dominates Washington, consideration of arms control treaties may be driven more by political considerations. The new trend of ignoring the views of the Pentagon may continue, while advancing national security may take a backseat to gaining political advantage.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., for example, has declared that he cannot support a treaty that doesn't fully fund nuclear modernization or maintain a reliable deterrent. And yet Linton Brooks, who ran the National Nuclear Security Administration during the Bush administration, stated, "I'd have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention"; and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Kevin Chilton, testified, "I am confident that the NPR and New START outline an approach that continues to enable the men and women of U.S. Strategic Command to deliver global security for America today and in the future."

Similarly Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has suggested that "New START" is a "distraction from addressing the real threats of nuclear proliferation" in direct contradiction of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who stated that the treaty "bolsters nonproliferation efforts." It is difficult to understand on what grounds the senator makes his assertion, other than politics.

Overall, this trend of disregarding the advice and analysis of America's military leadership with regard to nuclear weapons, while using the issue to attack the president, is a troubling development. For more than 40 years bipartisanship on nuclear arms control has served the nation well and provided stability to our policy making. That trend should continue.