Hallelujah: Joint Chiefs, Strategic Command Oppose Reckless Clinton Disarmament Initiatives

(Washington, D.C.): According to a front-page, above-the-fold report published in today’s Washington Times by the paper’s National Security correspondent Bill Gertz, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have sided with the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Richard Meis, in objecting to radical reductions in American offensive nuclear forces sought by the Russian government. Specifically, the Chiefs and CINCSTRAT do not believe that cuts to 1500 strategic weapons as part of a START III Treaty are compatible with what “Strategic Command needs to execute its nuclear deterrence and warfighting missions” in the post-Cold War world (i.e., no fewer than 2500 warheads).

Who’s in Favor of this Bad Idea?

This opposition takes on all the more importance insofar as Mr. Gertz confirms what has long been rumored: The Clinton White House and State Department have decided to embrace the Russian proposal, even though it would — under present circumstances and START counting rules not only dictate the certain evisceration of the U.S. “Triad” of forces. It would also precipitate the dismantling of scores of long-range bomber aircraft armed with conventional weaponry.

It is simply absurd to believe it desirable (not to say essential) for U.S. strategic nuclear force decisions to be influenced (not to say determined by) the number of land- and/or sea-based nuclear missiles and intercontinental-range bombers the Russians can afford. Obviously, that is even more true of decisions governing the size, capability and effectiveness of America’s non-nuclear weaponry.

Still more preposterous is the underlying reality: The most determined adherents to such outdated Cold War mirror-imaging in the U.S. government are those who were, by and large, not in favor of waging that conflict when it was underway and who now proclaim it to be irreversibly over at practically every turn.

You Want it Bad…

Evidently concerned that the military and/or the Congress may not accept the draconian and unwise strategic force cuts the Russians and Clinton-Gore civilian officials desire, the Administration is reportedly considering ordering them to be undertaken on a unilateral basis. According to Mr. Gertz, such a step might be taken as part of a “presidential nuclear initiative” — loosely modeled after one taken by President Bush in 1991 leading to massive reductions in and deactivation of U.S. tactical and theater nuclear forces. At the time, then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced that his nation would make its own, unilateral but reciprocal reductions in such forces. (It is worth noting that, notwithstanding this pledge and the demise of the USSR, Russia is believed to retain huge numbers of such weapons in its active inventory, although the exact whereabouts and operational status of cannot be determined with precision by U.S. — and even by some official Russian — sources.)

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), the influential chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Research and Development Committee, has properly denounced any such ill-considered unilateral “presidential initiative” in the absence of full consultation with and the approval of the Congress. In particular, he notes that “an assessment required under law to gauge strategic nuclear stability under a future START III agreement” has not been completed — a step that obviously should precede any decision (either of a unilateral or bilateral nature) to go to or beyond the 2500 weapons contemplated by the framework agreement for that treaty agreed between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997.

An indication of the sort of congressional repudiation President Clinton is inviting if he persists in making further, massive cuts in U.S. strategic forces can be seen in the rejection yesterday by Rep. Weldon’s committee of what Mr. Gertz described as “an amendment to [the FY2001] Defense authorization bill that would have given Mr. Clinton greater authority to cut nuclear forces.”

The Bottom Line

President Clinton is courting disaster — possibly politically and certainly strategically — if he pursues, in the face of rising opposition from not only the Congress but the uniformed military, unilateral or negotiated arms control agreements that would make more difficult the preservation of an effective nuclear deterrent. Insult would only be added to injury were he to compound this error by seeking an agreement with the Russians that would severely limit U.S. options promptly to deploy an effective, layered missile defense.