- Mar 27, 2010
- Reaction score
By Mark Steyn
In years to come - assuming, for the purposes of argument, there are any years to come - scholars will look back at President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit and marvel. For once, the cheap comparisons with 1930s appeasement barely suffice: To be sure, in 1933, the great powers were meeting in Geneva and holding utopian arms control talks even as Hitler was taking office in Berlin. But it's difficult to imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938 hosting a conference on the dangers of rearmament, and inviting America, France, Brazil, Liberia and Thailand, but not even mentioning Germany.
Yet that's what Mr. Obama just did: he held a nuclear gabfest in 2010, the biggest meeting of world leaders on American soil since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago - and Iran wasn't on the agenda.
Granted that almost all of Mr. Obama's exciting, innovative "change we can believe in" turns out to have been exhumed direct from the sclerotic '70s to stagger around like a rotting zombie in polyester bell-bottoms from some straight-to-video sequel, there's still something almost touchingly quaint in the notion of an international summit on nuclear "nonproliferation" in the 21st century. Five years ago, when there was still a chance the world might prevent a nuclear Iran rather than pretending to "contain" it, I remember the bewildered look from a "nonproliferation expert" on a panel I was on after I suggested nonproliferation was a laughably obsolescent frame for this discussion. You could just about enforce nonproliferation back in the Cold War, when the only official nuclear powers were the Big Five at the U.N. Security Council and the entry level for the nuclear club was extremely expensive and technologically sophisticated. Now it's not. If Pakistan and North Korea can be nuclear powers, who can't? North Korea's population is starving. Its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is lower than Ghana's, lower than Zimbabwe's, lower than Mongolia's. Which is to say its GDP is all but undetectable.
Yet it's a nuclear power.
That's what anachronistic nonproliferation mumbo-jumbo gets you. If you read in the paper that New Zealand had decided to go nuclear, would you lose a moment's sleep over it? Personally, I'd be rather heartened. It would be a sign that a pampered and somnolent developed world had awakened and concluded that betting your future on the kindness of strangers is a helluva gamble. What Mr. Obama and his empty showboaters failed even to acknowledge in their "security" summit is the reality of the post-Big Five nuclear age: We're on the brink of a world in which the wealthiest nations from Canada to Norway to Japan can barely project meaningful force to their own borders while the nickel 'n' dime basket cases go nuclear.
How long do you think that arrangement will last? Iran already has offered to share its nuclear technology with Sudan. Sudan? Ring a vague bell? Remember that "Save Darfur" interpretative-dance fundraiser you went to where someone read out a press release from George Clooney and you all had a simply marvelous time? Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed - with machetes. That's pretty labor-intensive. In the Congo, 5 1/2 million have been slaughtered - and again in impressively primitive ways.
But a nuclear Sudan would be a model of self-restraint?
STEYN: Obama in happy fairyland - Washington Times
Obama reminds me of my (now twenty year old daughter) when she was three watching Doctor Who on PBS (long since gone from PBS might I add).
She turned to me and said, "next time I'm going to tell Doctor Who to be nice to the Daleks!" She said brightly.
"Because then the Daleks will be nice to the Doctor?" I asked?
She smiled and nodded happily.
I didn't try to change her mind on that. Fantasy provides a buffer for children which protects them from the harsh realities of a sadly nastier world.
A three year has an excuse in believing everything will be okay if you are just "nice to everyone."
A president does not.
When a three year old has such a fantasy view on life, it's called simplicity.
When a 45+ year old man has such a world view, it's called hubris, and delusions of grandeur borne of arrogance.
Everyone will just stand in awe of Obama's dazzling smile, and telepropter driven speeches.
How could anyone disagree with such a "nice" man who has all the "answers?"
And when anyone points out the reality like the tea party, then simply smear them as hate mongers and war mongers, because NO ONE with any intelligence could disagree with the "annointed one."
This president is Jimmy Carter on steroids, and his foreign policy is heading to be far more disastrous.