Showdown in the Senate

America’s national security elites have come out in force in
support of New START.  Just this morning,
five
former Republican secretaries of state urged the Senate to ratify the
treaty in an op-ed for The Washington Post. 
They wrote, “we have here an agreement that is clearly in our national
interest.”  

The military’s case for the treaty is as clear.  As Lt.
Gen. Donald Kerrick (USA, ret.), former Deputy National Security Advisory
and defense intelligence official, said, New START “makes America safer.”  It is a simple, uncontroversial treaty, based
on a framework that Ronald
Reagan established decades ago.  It reinstates our ability to inspect
Russia’s nuclear arsenal – letting U.S. inspectors look “under the hoods” of
Russian missiles.  It also makes modest reductions in both U.S. and
Russian arsenals. 

In the face of this overwhelming national security argument,
the Senate’s procrastination on New START has always been suspect.  Veteran
congressional observer Norm Ornstein
of the American Enterprise Institute said last week:

“Nothing is more puzzling, or infuriating, than what is
happening to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  This treaty is supported enthusiastically by
Henry Kissinger, James Baker, George Schultz, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Adm.
Mike Mullen, virtually every significant military leader active and retired, and
all our NATO allies…

“Our military leaders are not prone to wishful thinking or
peace-at-any-price thinking.  The stakes
for America’s national interest, including Iran and Afghanistan, are immense
here.  Please, guys, suck it up and find
a way to make this work.”

The U.S. military argues that every day that passes without
the treaty is another day that the military remains in the dark on vital
intelligence about Russian nuclear forces.  Without this intelligence, the
military will have to resort to worst-case scenario planning and divert
intelligence resources to observing Russia more carefully – including
reconnaissance satellites that will have to be moved from Iraq or Afghanistan
to cover Russian missile sites.  That’s
why Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen said, “the military
leadership in this country believes that this treaty is essential to our future
security…I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly.”

The substantive debate on New START was settled last spring
and summer with over 20 Senate hearings and briefing and full answers to almost
1,000 questions submitted for the record—many times the norm for past treaties.
 Senators have had seven months to review the treaty.  Still, as USA
Today reports, “A few other Republicans are trotting out issues
addressed months ago.”  Senators who seem to “not
have done their homework on time.” 

In a last-ditch stall, GOP Minority Whip Senator Jon Kyl is
falling back on procedural delay, claiming it would take two weeks to consider
the treaty on the floor.  But the original,
far more complicated START treaty required only five days on the Senate floor,
and the Moscow treaty only three.  Those arguing against voting on New
START this year seem to only want to delay or defeat the treaty.  If true,
USA Today wrote, it “would be shameful.”

The Senate has a long history of support for nuclear
reductions treaties.  In fact, 23 members
of the current Senate were in office when the original START treaty was
ratified.  All of these senators (seven
of whom are Republicans) voted in favor of that treaty.  At that time, they cast their votes in line
with the recommendations of national security advisors and the U.S.
military.  The treaties are similar, the
military advice the same, the only difference is the president is from a
different party.  The current flood of
petty, partisan politics has no role in national security decisions.

The Senate must put the security of the United States and
its allies above political games.  An
overwhelming case for ratifying New START has been made by security leaders
America has trusted for decades from both parties.  Now it is not the time and this is not the
issue to use as a bargaining chip in the usual Washington political games.

It is time to vote with three words in mind:  The National Interest.

Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund and
author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons.