Charles Krauthammer: The ‘flexibility’ doctrine

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Published: March 30, 2012
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s
important for him (Putin) to give me space. … This is my last election. After my
election, I have more flexibility.”

— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mic, March 26
WASHINGTON — You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks)
assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait
because he’s seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people.
Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was
merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in
which Russia and the U.S. hold presidential elections.
Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a
travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules
after.
Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What
transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.
As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if
people knew Obama’s intentions of “flexibly” caving on missile defenses, they might
think twice about giving him a second term.
After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We
have no obligation to do so. The ABM Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.
We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic
advantage. Why give any of it away? In order to placate Putin, Obama had already in
2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to
host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?
It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized how intent he is
to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which
case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain
them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear3/30/12 Charles Krauthammer: The ‘flexibility’ doctrine | NewsOK.com
newsok.com/charles-krauthammer-the-flexibility-doctrine/article/3661760 2/2
0 SShhooww // HHiiddee CCoommmmeennttss
defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating
defenses is completely illogical.
Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last
election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more
flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his
cherished Russia “reset” policy.
Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?
On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights —
is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last
election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to
North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?
Nice endorsement
Can you imagine the kind of pressure a re-elected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of
anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our
most loyal East European friends who, having already once been left out on a limb by
Obama, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man
who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th
century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire.
They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the
mic was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to
Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.
Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough
to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world