THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Today's missile defense decision seems like absolutely the right move to me on both hawkish and dovish grounds. Deploying the sea-based Aegis system will give us a capability that is both more reliable and more appropriate than the questionable coverage that would have been provided by the ground-based interceptors President Bush wanted to place in Poland. The Polish missile defense would have used an untested booster rocket to launch an interceptor that is intended to destroy ICBMs. Given that Iran does not have any ICBMs, it makes more sense to focus on the threat from short- and medium-range missiles that Iran has had more success in developing, which is what the Aegis system does. Moreover, the Aegis SM-3 interceptor actually has a testing track record, albeit a mixed one. (For anyone confused by the various missile defense systems, the Arms Control Association has an enormously helpful chart here.)
And, although Mike is right that the Obama administration doesn’t seem to have gotten anything explicit in exchange from the Russians in return for scrapping Bush’s plan, removing this source of contention from the U.S.-Russian relationship should ease negotiations on a treaty to further reduce nuclear arsenals. Whether it helps us encourage Russia to pressure Iran over its nuclear program is another matter, but it’s hard to see how this would hurt. Poland and the Czech Republic (where we were planning to base a missile-defense radar) are understandably upset by the decision, but given that the missile defense system would have afforded them no meaningful defense against Russia, and given that we can demonstrate our commitment to their defense in other ways, it seems like this decision was a good one.
6 comments
This sort of analysis speaks broadly to how the mainstream media feel obligated to approach defense issues like this. Everything is reduced down to war games. But what about the economic tugs of war here? What is happening behind the scenes there? Think of it like this: Whenever one chunk of the Defense Department is pared back or dropped another chunk must be reinforced or added. Why? Because in scaling back, the SIZE of the Defense Department budget almost never goes down, does it? So, some sectors [corporations] in the military industrial complex will lose and other sectors [corporations] will gain. But this is practically never, ever, ever a facet that folks in publications like The New Republic seem interested in exploring. It's just not an inflection point worthy enough to be situated inside The Big Picture. The one cynically painted with literally billions and billions of dollars worth of paint [or military hardware as some call it] along the corridor between Washington and New York. I know: Not THAT again!!! A promise: When you take THAT seriously, I'll move on to other inflection points. Deal? george walton
- iambiguous
September 17, 2009 at 2:27pm
Scrapping the system is a win for us by reducing our self-delusion, even if we get nothing else in return. At best, the system Bush wanted to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic is a developmental work in progress. The Bush administration declared the missile defense system based in Alaska to be operational several years ago, despite a lack of evidence that it would work (and an abundance of evidence that it would not work unless our enemies thoughtfully installed homing beacons on their missiles, and maybe not even then). When you add in the fact that Iran has no ICBMs, which is what the system actually defends against, our "loss" from scrapping this system is entirely imaginary. On the other hand, the Navy's Aegis system does work against the type of missiles the Iranians are developing.
- JEFF FREY
September 17, 2009 at 6:17pm
Jeff, exactly. The big problem with the Bush administration's land-based missile defense system was that they could never explain how we were going to get the enemy to email us the tracking coordinates of their incoming missiles so we could shoot them down.
- ironyroad
September 17, 2009 at 8:36pm
Enhanced interrogation techniques, that's the ticket!
- JEFF FREY
September 18, 2009 at 1:26am
This whole kerfluffle, and the 25 years of history behind it, raise the question: Why do conservatives hate the U.S. Navy? The Navy has several missile-defense systems that already work. The Navy is also developing several anti-ICBM systems that are much more likely to work reliably, cost less, and give the president more strategic flexibility, than the Air Force's land-based fantasy systems. Yet conservatives haven't merely spent the last quarter-century trying to starve the Navy's missile-defense programs in order to pour money into the Air Force's SDI pit, they actively deny that the Navy's systems even are missile defense. So, conservatives: What did the U.S. Navy ever do to you to make you piss on our heroic sailors like this? Aside from conservatives' disturbing contempt for the Navy, it's almost comical to see conservatives respond with outrage to the news that the Defense Department plans to spend less money on a program that fulfills its mission more effectively. Is this because conservatives prefer to waste billions in taxpayer money, or is it because conservatives don't want to defend America and our allies against the missiles the enemy actually has? Or both? I also like the Czech government's response of requesting that the Army establish a West Point campus in Bohemia and that NASA send a Czech astronaut to the space station. Both perfectly fine ideas, both virtually free compared to the price of the Air Force antimissile installation, and both pitch-perfect for pissing off Russia in such petty ways that even Moscow won't want to be seen voicing its objections. Obama should pocket the Czech request and look for similar commitments with Poland, and then confront domestic conservatives with a united Eastern European "thank you, Mr. president" on the bargain. Then let Sen. McCain whine about "credibility" with our allies.
- rhubarbs
September 18, 2009 at 11:29am
If the missile defense systems planned for Poland and the Czech Republic were so inferior to the sea based system, why are the leaders of those two countries so upset by their withdrawal, and the leaders of Russia so pleased? If there is a secret deal for the Russians to support cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran what the administration has done is justified. But it's hard to believe that the Russians would throw their Iranian ally under the bus in exchange for dropping a missile defense system that was no threat to them. It appears that a profession chess player (Russia) is playing an amateur (the administration). At the very least NATO needs to reassure its eastern European members by conducting extensive war games within the next few months.
- bulbman1066
September 18, 2009 at 5:14pm