Two cheers for Obama’s nuclear summit

Posted By Peter Feaver Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 12:43 PM Share

A friend of mine likes to observe that in the area of national security, politicians have a real difficulty in distinguishing between "what's new, and what's new to you." President Obama's nuclear security summit seems to be a textbook example of this.

The administration has patted itself on the back for identifying nuclear terrorism as a major threat and Obama went so far as to claim that the risk of a nuclear terror attack "has gone up." As a straining-to-be sympathetic reporter put it: "Coming from Dick Cheney, words like that had a way of sounding like a scare tactic. Coming from Obama, they are genuinely scary." What the reporter didn't say, is that for nearly eight years critics have complained that the Bush-Cheney administration took the threat of nuclear terrorism too seriously (see the One Percent Doctrine). There is even a cottage industry devoted to pooh-poohing (see here and here) the entire matter as hype. Perhaps that industry will now direct its fire at Obama or perhaps it will find itself suddenly able to split the hair between a "scare tactic" and "genuinely scary."  

The administration has also described its initiatives as the first serious effort to get U.S. nuclear policy out of a Cold War mentality on the U.S.-Soviet/Russia nuclear balance and on to the more-pressing concerns of nuclear proliferation and "loose nukes." As my former colleague Will Tobey shows, this is not quite fair to the last three administrations, all three of which deserve credit for taking serious and consequential steps to confront the "loose nukes" problem. Indeed, if anything, it is the administration's own U.S.-Russian nuclear arms treaty "New START" that has the feel of an 80's Hot Tub Time Machine, not the combined records of Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.

The inability to distinguish between what's new and what's new to you is revealing but, in the final analysis, we should not let it completely detract from the overall effect of the summit which, I believe, is basically a positive one for the United States and for the Obama administration. The United States got renewed attention on a security priority that has been a central pillar of U.S. grand strategy for two decades now. If the promises made and aspirations expressed at the summit result in tangible action, this will be all to the good.

The Obama administration, for its part, gets credit for pulling off a very complex staff operation -- from a national security staff point of view, this summit has to be  the most ambitious venture the administration has attempted -- and for show-casing the president in a very favorable setting.

There may have been only marginal progress on the most urgent and important nuclear security issue -- dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions -- but there was progress overall. That is something that folks in the bleachers can cheer.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

EXPLORE:NUKES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, SECURITY
 

RHODESCOLOSSUS

1:59 AM ET

April 15, 2010

Blah blah

blah, more apologies for Darth Vader... when is enough enough? The man IS Darth Vader.

 

SURESH SHETH

2:12 AM ET

April 15, 2010

Obama's nuclear summit failed to focus

Obama’s nuclear summit failed to focus on ‘the center’ from where nuclear terrorism is most likely to emerge, namely PAKISTAN. Securing all the nuclear material in four years is NOT going to significantly reduce threat of nuclear terrorism since Obama’s summit gave a gapping pass to that ‘terror center’ of the world.

Obama’s summit also failed to focus on China’s central damning role in creating this threat of nuclear terrorism in the first place.

Let us NOT forget that China made this world lot more dangerous by proliferating its nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan and North Korea. Let us NOT forget that Pakistan in turn proliferated Chinese nuclear weapon technology to Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Try all he may but it is doubtful that Obama or any other US President can cork the nuclear genie that US unleashed in 1945. That august body called US Senate with its 100 thinking heads will never approve a treaty ‘destroying all the nuclear weapons of all the countries in the world bar none’ even if some US President was to succeed in getting such a treaty agreed to.

Let us face it - nuclear weapon crowns not just the powerful but the powerless equally.

Five Brahmins of UN Security Council have a right to possess, improve and increase their nuclear weapons stockpiles while preaching others the evils of the same weapons.

It is highly unlikely that any of these Brahmins is going to completely let go the safety and prestige that their nuclear weapons confer upon them. They will find every excuse to hold on to their nuclear weapon stockpiles while trying to monopolize that possession.

By their very actions, these five Brahmins encourage others who want to achieve the same status as them by acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

WOLFBOY

11:33 AM ET

April 15, 2010

Splitting Hairs

Allow me, Dr. Feaver, to suggest how one might distinguish between Mr. Cheney's 'scare tactics' and Mr. Obama's 'genuinely scary' warnings.

A scare tactic is used in the service of advancing an ulterior motive.

Cheney employed such warnings to promote (and later to justify) the invasion of Iraq, as well as abusive and illegal detention practices, all of which arguably nurtured terrorism without appreciably affecting nuclear security.

Obama is employing such warnings in an effort to secure fissile material.

 

BLACKSHYLD

9:39 PM ET

April 15, 2010

Credibility Gap

The difference between Obama and Cheney is largely credibility. Even if Cheney was on to something, the manner he used to consistently exploit a real issue for political gain.

Obama hasn't been in office long enough yet to lose credibility in the manner that Cheney has. What will matter is how Obama will tackle the issue, will there be concrete progress (even marginal) or will it just be a convenient political ploy to garner blank checks?

Personally i find it funny that right wingers, the folks who think that to much power is focused in the federal government, rally behind a man who's most lasting contribution was concentrating so much power in the executive branch, he has perhaps done more to strengthen Obama's power than any effort yet by this administration. Oh the Irony.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More