Taxation without representation observations on START

by Jim Campbell

In yesterday’s column, No RINO left behind it became very clear that those the American electorate send to Washington on both sides of the aisle don’t have the Constitution or the American people in mind as they play their political games.

Of the legislation passed during the lame duck session could there be a bigger issue needing full discussion by the entire congress than the unlikely read, yet passed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty?  (START)

This bill should have been filibustered from the beginning.

What conceivable reason could or should the countries ‘elected officials’ be even thinking about limiting any of the U.S. arsenals when China is known to have developed missile technology capable of sinking U.S. Aircraft carriers.

For the purpose of this discussion, suffice to say that the original START was proposed by President Ronald Reagan to limit the number of Russian ICBM’s.  It was ratified in 1991 and reductions completed by 2001.

The actual rationale and deep issues involved are not relevant to the issue at hand with the exception that is being predicated on an antiquated model which still holds the Soviet Union as the threat.  Nothing seems further from the truth.

So what is the actual timing and reasoning behind the recently passed START, in the lame duck congress on December 22, 2010 the final day of congress and the beginning of Christmas recess?

In an in depth review on the new START by George Friedman, founder and CEO of the Stratfor Global Intelligence Report the complete rationale and assumptions are revealed.

U.S. opposition was divided into two groups. One, particularly Republicans, saw this as a political opportunity to embarrass the president.

Another argued, not particularly coherently, that using an archaic issue as a foundation for building a relationship with Russia allowed both sides to evade the serious issues dividing the two sides.

The role of Russia in the former Soviet Union, NATO and EU expansion, Russia’s use of energy to dominate European neighbors, the future of Ballistic Missile Defense, (BMD) against Iran, Russia’s role in the Middle East.

In the end, the issue boiled down to this. START was marginal at best. But if President Barack Obama couldn’t deliver on START his credibility with the Russians would collapse.

It wasn’t so much that a New START would build confidence, as it was that a failure to pass a New START would destroy confidence.

It was on that basis that the U.S. Senate approved the treaty. Its opponents argued that it left out discussions of BMD and tactical nuclear weapons.

Their more powerful argument was that the United States just negotiated a slightly modified version of a treaty that Ronald Reagan proposed a quarter century ago and it had nothing to do with contemporary geopolitical reality.

Passage allowed Obama to dodge a bullet, but it leaves open a question that he does not want to answer: What is American strategy toward Russia? He has mimicked American strategy from a quarter century ago, not defined what it will be.

Equally important is the question are those that are taxing Americans failing to represent Americans, as in ‘taxation without representation?’

Did it possibly occur to those that lust for power and control, that third world Muslim nations don’t care about delivery systems. They are ramping up to play a more sinister game.

In conclusion is the reduction in military might of the United States of America of more importance in saving what appears to be an already failed presidency?

Can the Russians be trusted to dispose of their warheads and not sell fissionable material to the highest third world band of terrorists?  Only the shadow knows.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.