The Week

Old slogan of the Left: “One, two, many Vietnams.” New slogan of the Left: “One, two, many Microsofts.”

Unilateral disarmament? That’s right. In a recent missile-defense speech, George W. Bush offered to junk some U.S. missiles unilaterally. This idea will cause heartburn among the Joint Chiefs and surely prompt congressional Democrats to try to seize on Bush’s rhetoric for dovish ends. But the thrust of the governor’s approach is sound. Why should the configuration of the U.S. force depend on Russia, which is no longer a hostile ideological power and is rapidly becoming the drunk man of Europe? The U.S. should devise a strategy consistent with the protection of its national security and implement it, without worrying about inking new arms-control deals (for more fresh thinking on this issue, see former CIA director R. James Woolsey’s piece on page 36). Bush understands that the ABM Treaty should not stand in the way of America’s defending itself from hostile missiles. Al Gore, in contrast, wants dramatic U.S—Russia summits reminiscent of the 1970s, and supine nakedness for American cities, as dictated by the parchment gods of the ABM Treaty. The vice president is on that famous bridge to the 21st century, walking the wrong way.

Featured Tags

William F. Buckley Jr.

John Bolton

United Nations

Supreme Court

Old slogan of the Left: “One, two, many Vietnams.” New slogan of the Left: “One, two, many Microsofts.”

Unilateral disarmament? That’s right. In a recent missile-defense speech, George W. Bush offered to junk some U.S. missiles unilaterally. This idea will cause heartburn among the Joint Chiefs and surely prompt congressional Democrats to try to seize on Bush’s rhetoric for dovish ends. But the thrust of the governor’s approach is sound. Why should the configuration of the U.S. force depend on Russia, which is no longer a hostile ideological power and is rapidly becoming the drunk man of Europe? The U.S. should devise a strategy consistent with the protection of its national security and implement it, without worrying about inking new arms-control deals (for more fresh thinking on this issue, see former CIA director R. James Woolsey’s piece on page 36). Bush understands that the ABM Treaty should not stand in the way of America’s defending itself from hostile missiles. Al Gore, in contrast, wants dramatic U.S—Russia summits reminiscent of the 1970s, and supine nakedness for American cities, as dictated by the parchment gods of the ABM Treaty. The vice president is on that famous bridge to the 21st century, walking the wrong way.