Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America

JWV Reiterates Support for Defensive Shield in the Middle East

July 2009

The Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV) is gratified that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the United States would consider extending a "defense umbrella" over the Middle East if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

In a recent commentary from Past National Commander Robert M. Zweiman and numerous articles over the past years, the JWV has strenuously advocated mandatory retaliation in our dealings with Iran or with Korea.

In light of the recent remarks from the Secretary of State, the JWV would like to bring your attention to PNC Zweiman's most recent commentary on this issue, published in the June 2009 issue of The Jewish Veteran, which is reprinted in its entirety below.

ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE - DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE TABLE IS LONG OR SHORT

North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test in a munitions range equal to the US Hiroshima atomic bomb; they have tested their ICB missiles and - they have said that they were no longer bound by the 1953 truce [the one that ended the Korean Conflict]. Kim Jong-Il has also named his youngest son as his successor - guess he's probably the best one in playing video games. What happens if they send troops into South Korea, or even fire off a nuclear weapon at Japan or even the USA?

Iran has tested its missile - good enough to reach our troops, Sunni nations and Israel. Our President is giving them until the end of the year to show how reasonable we are going to be in our diplomacy. Probably we will pass it off as merely a test of a delivery system for expanding their ability to implement their nuclear energy grid. The year end will come and go, and can we expect there to be a love fest with Iran?

And, on top of it all, we are now engaged in war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yep, Pakistan. The real soft spot there is that Pakistan, an exceedingly fragile government, actually has nuclear bombs or devices. Since we are friends, they have 'assured ' us that they are in full control of them; even though the head of their nuclear research has sold some of their research on the black market; and, if they happen to run short on their budget, will they have to sell a couple of bombs? We have sent them billions of dollars with only their assurance and no right of any joint control or even location.

OOPS!!!! While we are exceptionally concerned with leakage of secret information from Pakistan, our government has released a 266-page report listing the US sites showing highly enriched uranium storage, nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear research facilities and ''highly confidential safeguards sensitive.'' Apparently, it was a mistake which we will now make sure doesn't happen again - interesting approach.

Our President seems to feel that he can use his rhetorical snow job as a control, especially after saying that all options are on the table, including military or nuclear - which apparently means that, since all options are on the table. If through some inadvertence a nuclear device or bomb happens, by mistake, to hit a capitol, will we consider whether we want to respond? Without some definition, our national direction of security is obscured.

We do, however, have some experience as to options. During the Cold War, both we and the Soviets sat for 40 years in Europe without a problem. We sat with Mutual Assured Destruction, Flexible Response and whatever other theory they had, which meant that each side could immediately or preemptively respond to a threat or actual delivery of a nuclear device.

So what is the problem of specifying the reality of our response? That we will immediately retaliate without the need to enter into meaningless negotiations or being concerned with global public relations. That it will apply whether the provocation be done by a nation or by any so-called rogue nations or groups financed or sponsored by a nation.

There has to come a time when the fear of a nuclear conflict is put into proper perspective with what we can accept as a firm firewall. Retaliatory death has a finality to it - it's the only alternative option we should offer.

 

«Return to Previous Page