Search

Results

No new nukes, announces Obama

11 Apr 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In the Sunday reading from the Book of Revelation, “a voice as loud as a trumpet” says to John, “I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.” Expressing grave concern over the potential for nuclear proliferation and “nuclear terrorism,” President Barack Obama Tuesday announced a fundamental shift in the nation’s nuclear strategy. Arguing that the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists represents a worse threat than the nuclear Armageddon feared during the Cold War, Obama said his administration would narrow the circumstances in which the U.S. might launch a nuclear strike, forgo the development of new nuclear warheads, and seek even deeper reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals. "The greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states," Obama said. The announcement set the stage for his trip to Prague Thursday to sign a new arms reduction agreement with Russia to cut stockpiles of long-range nuclear warheads by a third, as well as for a "nuclear summit" of 40 world leaders Obama will host next Monday in Washington. Those gathered will discuss improving safeguards against terrorists acquiring nuclear bombs. From the start of his term in office Obama has put halting the spread of atomic arms near the top of his defense priorities. But during his first year he failed to achieve a significant breakthrough on arguably the two biggest threats: Iran and North Korea. "Given al-Qaeda's continued quest for nuclear weapons, Iran's ongoing nuclear efforts, and North Korea's proliferation, this focus is appropriate and, indeed, an essential change from previous" policy, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday. While the new policy rules out new nuclear weapons or testing, it calls for setting aside billions of dollars to "modernize" existing U.S. weaponry. The new strategy, though a major shift, isn't as far-reaching as liberals had hoped nor as radical as conservatives had feared, said analysts. It contains initiatives sought by both sides, including those of Republican senators whose votes Obama will need in order for the new arms reduction treaty with Russia to be ratified. Articles by Dan De Luce for Agence France Presse, Jonathan S. Landay and Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers, and Robert Burns and Anne Flaherty for Associated Press

barack obama al qaeda nuclear weapons north korea iran nuclear strategy robert gates
Will Libyan no-fly zone fly?

27 Mar 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

"We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" and a hope that "does not disappoint," Saint Paul writes to the Romans. Questions about the objectives of the United Nations-mandated military mission in Libya have challenged the faith and hope of those looking for peace and the end of dictatorship in that North African country. As of Thursday morning coalition jets had pounded targets for a fifth consecutive night but so far have been unable to stop Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's armored forces. In Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, a resident told CNN that snipers loyal to Gadhafi were operating from rooftops. The battle for that city has been going on for more than a week. On Wednesday U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking from Cairo, acknowledged there is no clear end to the international military enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya and says no one was ever under any illusion that the assault would last only two or three weeks. He said that the U.S. could turn over leadership of the operation as soon as Saturday but could not say how the coalition operation might be resolved. The beginning of the transition from U.S. control was emerging Wednesday as NATO warships started patrolling off the coast of Libya to enforce an arms embargo. Gates said the goals for the mission are clear: the establishment of a no-fly zone and preventing Gadhafi from killing his own people, but he had no answer when asked about a possible stalemate if Gadhafi hunkers down. The U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the assault does not approve targeting him. But some analysts and U.S. politicians are questioning whether the Obama administration is being clear enough about the purposes of the Libyan mission and even whether it has the authority to conduct the operation. Max Boot, a senior fellow for national security studies for the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. needs to look at what will happen in a post-Gadhafi Libya. He suggested sending in an international peacekeeping force if the Gadhafi regime falls, a move that would require another U.N. resolution. “In some ways this is like Iraq redux where we are very much focused on the immediate objectives,” Boot said. “And we are not looking down the road to how we create a stable and relatively peaceful Libya. A cease-fire is not going to be durable and as long as Gadhafi remains in power, the crisis will go on and on and on,” Boot said. In Congress some members are complaining that President Barack Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya is ignoring the legislative branch. In his two statements on Libya in the past few days Obama said he had acted “after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress.” Instead of seeking a vote by Congress to affirm his actions, Obama cited as his authority the U.N. Security Council resolution passed last week. But Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told NBC: “We have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way. The president is in Rio; the Congress is out of session. We have been on autopilot for almost 10 years now in terms of presidential authorization in conducting these type of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress. We have not had a debate . . . . This isn’t the way that our system is supposed to work.” Sources: Articles by Tom Curry for msnbc.com, CNN Wire Staff, and the Associated Press

barack obama no-fly zone misrata libya moammar gadhafi jim webb un security council robert gates congress max boot
Time to shed worn-out Afghan policy?

12 Jun 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“You renew the face of the earth,” says the psalmist of the Lord this Sunday. A decade of national renewal in Afghanistan may be coming to a quicker end than previously envisioned. In the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and the rising cost--and unpopularity--of the military effort, President Barack Obama’s national security team is contemplating steeper troop reductions than before. They also want to push Afghan president Hamid Karzai to take the initiative in renewing the war-torn nation. The president is expected to address these decisions in a speech to the nation this month. Concern over the rising U.S. debt is driving a growing drumbeat in Congress for a significant pullout. Adding to the pressure, a two-year congressional investigation released Wednesday concluded that the hugely expensive U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal. The report, prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff, comes as Congress and the American public have grown increasingly restive about the human and economic costs of the decade-long war. The report describes the use of aid money to stabilize areas the military has cleared of Taliban fighters--a key component of the administration’s counterinsurgency strategy--as a short-term fix that provides politically pleasing results, but it said that the enormous cash flows can overwhelm and distort local culture and economies and that there is little evidence the positive results are sustainable. The nearly $19 billion the U.S. has already spent on foreign aid to Afghanistan and the billions more to come in the next few years could end up doing little if any long-term good unless more focused planning is done, the report said. Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who opposes a rapid drawdown of forces, weighed in Sunday, saying the U.S. “was not about to pull up stakes” in Afghanistan and that a gradual withdrawal of combat troops would be done slowly and responsibly. The Pentagon said the war in Afghanistan costs about $2 billion a week. Sources: Articles by David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt, and Thom Shanker for the New York Times,David Alexander for Reuters, Nicole Gauette for Bloomberg.com, Linda Wertheimer, Renee Montagne,and Mark Memmott for National Public Radio, and the Associated Press

afghanistan robert gates foreign relations committee