A bipartisan group of senators, including Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, wrote to Obama on Monday to voice their opposition to what they called "deep cuts" in missile and missile-defense programs.

"I cannot believe what I heard today. President Obama is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military in a time of war," said Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said, "North Korea's launch of a long-range ballistic missile should be a clarion wake-up call to the whole world that this is not the time to diminish our missile-defense budget as proposed by the Obama administration."

There were reports, too, that Iranian missile experts were present at the North Korean missile launch, which Franks said "compounds the threat. As dangerous as North Korea's missile capability is becoming, it should be noted that Iran's missile technology is far advanced than that of North Korea; and if Iran should also gain the nuclear capability now possessed by North Korea, the entire paradigm of world peace would be jeopardized."

More than half-a-dozen members of the House missile-defense caucus hurled similar statements at the White House Monday. Indeed, this was no time to be cutting back on any missile-defense systems that have shown we can destroy incoming enemy missiles with deadly accuracy. We need to continue testing proven and even as yet unproven systems.

Obama made headlines by showing that he could work closely with the Russians on what he hopes will be a new treaty to reduce nuclear weapons between the two superpowers.

But not long after Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev shook hands on the deal, Russia was defending North Korea's right to shoot missiles into orbit for "peaceful" purposes. Sure.

"Is the new president shrewd and pragmatic about using his power at home and abroad -- or too passive, even weak?" the Post's Jackson Diehl asked Sunday. It is a critical question that demands further scrutiny in the weeks and months to come.