9/17/09

President Obama announced this morning that he is terminating the Bush administration's failed Eastern European missile defense system.  At a press conference this morning, the President said that "The best way to responsibly advance our security and the security of our allies is to deploy a missile defense system that best responds to the threats that we face, and that utilizes technology that is both proven and cost effective."

Conservatives have been quick to go on the attack, arguing that this will leave Europe exposed to an Iranian attack. These arguments are not based in fact, as not only do the cancelled missile defense systems have significant technological shortfalls, but they would also fail to protect against Iranian missiles because of both their location and technological advances in Iranian missile technology. Furthermore, from a geopolitical perspective, the European missile defense was a disaster.  It worsened relations with Russia without even providing a credible defense against their nuclear arsenal, further undercutting nonproliferation efforts. Because there is no strategic benefit to maintaining the program - either militarily or diplomatically - the Obama administration has wisely has decided to eliminate this program and to develop a more adaptable missile defense system that better protects Europe. Yet conservatives, who have fervently supported a missile defense program for decades despite obvious shortcomings, predictably were aghast at the President's decision. Their baseless support for this system only exposes their Cold War-era outlook and their ideologically-driven devotion to a weapons system that has almost no utility against the threats of the 21st century.

The Obama Administration is restoring American credibility while protecting our national security and that of our allies by cancelling a failed, ideologically-driven program.  The administration has decided that a failed missile defense program should not be preserved at the cost of both our security and that of our NATO allies. A Congressional Research Service report written earlier this summer pointed out the dangerous consequences of the program, "[t]he proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD [Ground-based Missile Defense] facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states-and possibly from Russia."  Regarding the Administration's decision to scrap the Eastern European missile defense program University of Kentucky professor Robert Farley writes that, "[n]o convincing strategic logic could ever be provided for the program; advocates careened wildly between arguments, desperately trying to see if they could make anything stick... Meh; I'd rather get them something they could actually use."  The EastWest Institute has also written how the missile defense program negatively affected America's relationship with other nuclear powers.  It stated that "[n]ot everyone accepts the U.S. government's assurances that its missile defense policy is directed against Iran and North Korea."  The failed system had other negative repercussions globally, such as when China and Russia signed a joint statement in 2008 condemning the deployment of missile defenses: "Both sides believe that creating a global missile defense system, including deploying such systems in certain regions of the world, or plans for such co-operation, do not help support strategic balance and stability, and harm international efforts to control arms and the nonproliferation process."  The administration has now turned the tables on these arguments and is seizing the diplomatic initiative globally by this bold decision. [Robert Farley, 9/17/09. CRS, 6/22/09. EastWest Institute, May 2009]

The Bush administration's failed missile defense shield was not technologically feasible and would not have protected either us or our allies against the threat from Iran - Obama has a better approach.   A recent report from the EastWest Institute pointed out the ineffectiveness of the missile defense program, stating that an "[e]ffective missile defense has proved an elusive goal since the development of ballistic missiles. Nuclear warheads make the requirements for defense especially stringent because a defense that is even ninety percent effective could hardly be judged satisfactory by the defending country, even though the attacker might well consider this to be a serious threat to his offensive capabilities. Missile defense is by its nature a competition between the offense and the defense, and to date the advantage has lain with the offense." The report went on to say how easy it would have been to overcome the failed Bush shield, "[a]mong the measures the attacker can take to confuse the defense and render it ineffective are reduction or elimination of the radar reflections from the warhead by covering the warhead nose with a pointy metallic sleeve and by covering other parts of the warhead with radar absorbent material. Moreover, by scarring the surface of the warhead with wires, it would be possible to create additional reflections in order to confuse the radars. Decoys could also be deployed that would appear to the kill vehicle's infrared homing sensor as credible targets, thereby making the task of target discrimination extremely difficult. Balloons or mock warheads could serve as decoys. Countermeasures of this kind will be readily available to any adversary capable of building, deploying, and operating an IRBM or ICBM."  In addition, "[i]f Iran believed that U.S. missile defenses were effective and was reckless enough to want to attack Europe or the United States, it could simply build more missiles to overwhelm those defenses. If Iran were to attack Europe with more than one or two missiles, the European missile defense system as proposed could not defend Europe."

Moreover, Andy Grotto wrote for the Center for American Progress that the Eastern European system was not even the most effective program for protecting against the threat of an Iranian missile. He wrote in Real Clear World that, "When the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor is delivered in 2015, three AEGIS-equipped ships supported by two transportable forward-based radars could protect more European capitals against a broader range of Iranian ballistic missile threats than the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system the Bush administration proposed deploying to the Czech Republic and Poland." Hence, "the Defense Department will announce plans to deploy a different missile defense system, likely including Aegis-radar, sea-based interceptors and other short-range interceptors. "We are not abandoning missile defense," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said.  He went on to say that "we are adjusting and enhancing the system to protect us and our friends from a short- and medium-range threat." As President Obama stated at his press conference this morning, "'Our new missile defense architecture in Europe' will be 'smarter, safer, and swifter' than the plan authored by predecessor George W. Bush." Arms Control Association Senior Fellow Greg Thielmann added, "'The Obama administration has signaled that it will pursue more effective alternative missile defense approaches that have a greater potential for countering realistic ballistic missile threats to our NATO allies and U.S. forces in the region,'"[EastWest Institute, May 2009. Andy Grotto, Real Clear World, 6/23/09. LA Times, 9/17/09. USA Today, 9/17/09. Arms Control Association, 9/17/09]

Progressives are making smart changes in defense policy, while conservatives remain attached to ideologically-driven Cold War era programs that are unsuitable for counteracting 21st century threats.  Conservatives are already expressing anger about the Administration's decision to end the U.S.' ground-based European missile defense program.  Senator Jon Kyl (R - AZ) called the decision "dangerous and short-sighted" and ironically added that "[n]ot only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War."  Heritage Foundation Research Fellow Mackenzie Eaglen called the choice irresponsible given the possibility of Iranian nuclear "break-out." By stubbornly pushing for missile defense, and ignoring all the evidence suggesting that the current systems designed for Europe are ineffective and counterproductive, conservatives continue to exhibit a Cold-War mentality well into the 21st century. As President Obama explained this morning, the U.S. must commit to defense systems that are "adaptable to the threats of the 21st century" - not the outmoded systems supported by conservatives.  Defense expert and University of Kentucky professor Robert Farley said the decision to cut ground-based platforms in Europe was "a huge victory for common sense over fantasy, and for responsible defense budgeting."  Farley added that the "project had no function other than to serve the pecuniary interest of the missile defense industry, and to sate the ideological lust of conservatives."  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this of the missile defense programs often supported by conservatives: "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that...in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed, or research programs that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars." [Senator Jon Kyl (R - AZ) via the Weekly Standard, 9/17/09. Mackenzie Eaglen, 9/17/09. President Obama, 9/17/09. Robert Farley, 9/17/09. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates via CDI, 5/13/09]

What We're Reading

President Obama says he won't rush US troops into Afghanistan as he delivered metrics to Congress to measure the war's progress. Meanwhile, the first fully counted tally of presidential votes gives incumbent Hamid Karzai 54% of the vote. Rivals like Abdullah Abdullah wait for a final result with fraudulent ballots tossed out, but other rivals are exploring alliances with each other and President Karzai. An investigation into the NATO bombing of fuel trucks estimate that 30 civilians were killed, and a car bomb exploded near the US embassy in Kabul killing 16, including 11 Italian troops.

Pakistani Human Rights groups claim a Christian who was arrested for his faith was killed in jail.

While in Iran, Vice President Joseph Biden pushed Iraqi leaders to seek political reconciliation by passing a voting and oil law as soon as possible.

Restriction against Iranian opposition figures continue as reformist clerics are barred from speaking at a commemoration rally.

The United States is seeking a third delay in several cases involving Guantanamo detainees.

The Director of National Intelligence says the yearly intelligence budget is $75 billion dollars.

Somali President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, whose government has widespread support, is giving Somalia its best chance at stability in an generation, says analysts.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is accused of using his national intelligence service to spy on political rivals.

Japan's new Prime Minister is looking for a less "passive" relationship with the United States.

China announced they broke-up a bombing plot in Xinjiang province, where ethnic tensions between Han Chinese and Uighur Muslims have simmered the past few months.

Israel rejects a UN-requested review of their human rights violations during their January invasion of Gaza.

Commentary of the Day

The Washington Post believes that the Obama Administration's recent policy changes for detainees at Bagram do not go far enough in ensuring rights for detainees, particularly those not captured in Afghanistan but who are, nonetheless, are being held in Afghanistan.

Roger Cohen believes conventional wisdom was too quick to dismiss Iran's proposal for talks as obfuscation and that closer scrutiny could reveal avenues for more robust engagement.

David Ignatius feels that greater transparency for the CIA will make it more efficient and responsive to ever shifting political winds.

The LA Times argues that the Obama Administration should drop its insistence to keep detainee abuse photos hidden, release the photos, and not drag the fight for secrecy all the way to the Supreme Court.