The article says that President Obama’s lieutenants argue that smaller and more reliable nuclear weapons will make their use less likely, reasoning that doesn’t make sense to me. I believe that developing such flexible weapons will make their use more likely, as the weapons will fill niches not covered previously. General James Cartwright, a retired vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees that “what going smaller does is to make the weapon more thinkable.”

And Andrew Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense, said that “It’s unaffordable and unneeded.”

Of course, Russia and China are very much opposed to the new developments, and their opposition adds to nuclear tension and increases the possibility of a new arms race.

In 2009, in his first year in office, Mr. Obama pledged that he would take steps toward a nuclear-free world and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons.” The Nobel committee cited his pledge in awarding him the Peace Prize.

Mr. Obama is reversing his earlier position by increasing the role of nuclear weapons in his military arsenal. His new position is just plain wrong. We must oppose these misguided and dangerous weapons.

Source

William Broad and David Sanger, “Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens to Revive Cold War,” The New York Times, Jan 11, 2016.

Mr. Obama decided not to provide more arms to the moderate Syrian rebels precisely because he was rightly concerned that these weapons might well fall into the hands of ISIS.

The current chaos in Iraq, Syria, and beyond is a consequence of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Hillary Clinton supported and Barack Obama opposed.

In its first decree, the American occupation ordered that all public sector employees affiliated with the Ba’ath Party were to be removed from their positions and to be banned from any future employment in the public sector. This effectively disenfranchised huge numbers of Iraq’s Sunnis, who were the core of the old regime. The new government was Shiite and sectarian. Until these deeper political issues are addressed, ISIS will find support even among those who deplore its brutality.

It is not President Obama, but the Neoconservatives who planned the invasion of Iraq before the September 11th attacks, whom Hillary Clinton should be blaming. She might add a word of remorse for her own role.

Sources:

The Atlantic

The Guardian

Mondoweiss

On De-Ba’athification

Slate

The Nation