President Obama has set the stage for an acrimonious relationship with the newly elected senators of the 112th Congress. As they come to Washington this week for freshman orientation, his welcome message amounts to, "I want to disenfranchise you."
This "unwelcome" applies especially to those occupying six new Republican seats in the Senate come January. It bears most particularly on two issues that will profoundly affect U.S. security over the next six years of these newly minted senators' terms in office and far beyond: the so-called New START treaty and the repeal of a statute prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.
New START is a seriously defective arms-control agreement with the Russians, one that would make dramatic and ill-advised cuts in the number of U.S. strategic weapons and delivery systems. To be ratified, such a treaty needs the affirmative votes of 67 senators. President Obama thinks he may be able to secure those votes if he makes incredible promises to yesterday'sSenate, the one running out the clock in a post-election "lame-duck" session.
Specifically, Mr. Obama reportedly is prepared to pledge to spend nearly $90 billion over the next 10 years on long-overdue improvements to the nation's nuclear weapons industrial base. Even if he were committed to such a worthy investment, much of it would be made toward the end of what would be his second term (should he be re-elected) or later - hardly a bankable proposition. That is all the more true because the president is determined to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Does anyone really think he will sink vast sums at a time of acute fiscal distress in an enterprise he wants to dismantle, not preserve?
Should Republicans currently in the Senate buy this pig in a poke, they would be denying any opportunity to their newly elected colleagues to learn about, let alone seek improvements to a treaty that would leave the United States with far fewer nuclear weapons than the Russians (and obsolescent ones, at that); would impose what amount to new constraints on missile defenses and prompt global-strike weapons that are conventionally armed; and would be inadequately verifiable, according to the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, outgoing Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri.
Fourteen former senators, led by Rick Santorum and Jim Talent, last week wrote a powerful open letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, pointing out that the Senate has never before voted on a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty under the severe time constraints of a lame-duck session. They urged that what has been called "the world's greatest deliberative body" not accede to the Obama administration's demands to break with past and sensible precedent - and in the process, disenfranchise those new senators on whose watch the repercussions of this deficient accord will be felt.
The president similarly hopes to jam through the Senate during the lame-duck session what amounts to a mortal threat to the nation's all-volunteer force by eliminating the law that bars homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.
To this end, a Comprehensive Working Group (CRWG) in the Pentagon has prepared a report that has been leaked selectively, notably by an unnamed person who told The Washington Post last week that he did so to prevent opponents of repeal from "mischaracterizing" the report's findings. In other words, senators - and the rest of us - are being "spun": We are being encouraged to believe that the Defense Department has determined that there will be no adverse implications of the president's social experiment.
Yet, according to The Post, even the cynically manipulative leaks reveal that a survey by the CRWG of military personnel and families found that an unspecified number among the "more than 70 percent" of respondents to the survey had said repeal would have "mixed results." Fully 40 percent of Marines are "concerned about lifting the ban." And "a significant minority" in the other services reportedly oppose serving alongside openly homosexual troops.
The issue has never been whether some in the armed forces would continue to serve if avowed homosexuals were allowed in uniform. Rather, the question is whether in time of war it is prudent, let alone advisable, to take steps that predictably will result in the loss of significant numbers of military personnel, persons who do not want to be put in positions of forced intimacy with people who may find them sexually attractive.
Shamefully, the Pentagon allowed such leaks - and the false impression they were designed to promote - to go uncontested for days, until last Friday afternoon (the news equivalent of a black hole) when the press spokesman issued a statement denouncing them. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who strongly supports repeal, is "very concerned and extremely disappointed" [read, "shocked, shocked"] to discover that some in his camp are trying, in his words, "to shape perceptions of the report prior to its release." Round up the usual suspects.
The U.S. Senate is being given the bum's rush on New START and the homosexuals-in-the-military issue. If the newly elected senators do not want their welcome to Washington to be disenfranchisement on such momentous matters, they better tell President Obama - and his allies among yesterday's senators - to "fuggedaboutit."
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio," heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.