10/08/09

Conservatives were up in arms following the Obama administration’s decision to scrap ground-based missile defense in Europe in favor of a largely sea-based system. Yesterday, Ellen Tauscher, the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, took on the opponents of this decision. She explained that the Administration will instead deploy proven missile defense systems that can defend against short and medium range missiles – the missiles that Iran actually possesses – as opposed to wasting multiple years and billions of dollars developing a Bush era ground based long-range missile defense system to counter a threat that doesn’t exist.

In addition, as Defense Secretary Gates noted, support for ground-based missile defense has become almost theological. In their reflexive support for anything labeled missile defense, conservatives have been advocating for a system that not only would fail to protect Europe, but would also dangerously and unproductively escalate tensions between the U.S. and Russia. While President Obama is seeking to deal with 21st century challenges in a realistic manner, conservative arguments remain better suited to the ideological debates of the Cold War from past decades, rather than those of today.

Undersecretary of State Tauscher defends administration’s missile defense program in the face of conservative criticism. “Ellen O. Tauscher, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, defended plans to overhaul Bush administration design for missile defense in Eastern Europe in a speech today at the Atlantic Council, a transatlantic-themed Washington think tank,” reports Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy goes on to say, “Tauscher said that the Obama administration is seriously interested in missile defense cooperation with Russia, including taking up the Russian offer to share data from the Russian-leased, Azerbaijani-owned early warning radar at Qabala, and the early-warning radar at Armavir in southern Russia. Tauscher and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov will cochair the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission's working group on Arms Control and International Security, one of the committees announced after the July summit meant to shore up relations on a host of issues, in Moscow next week. Cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic, which were supposed to have housed the Bush administration's missile-defense infrastructure, will continue in a new form,” Tauscher said.  

The Washington Post also reports today that “A breakthrough that enables the early targeting of ballistic missiles by linking radars and other sensors from different parts of the world is key to the Obama administration's new missile defense plans, according to senior administration officials... Instead of putting 10 interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic to counter intercontinental missiles, officials said, they would focus on containing Iran's ability to fire short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.” Furthermore, the Arms Control Association explained, “The Bush administration's proposed missile interceptor system would not have protected NATO members Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania from current Iranian missile threats since the defense was not designed to cover this area. The Obama administration has time to explore new approaches that do a better job of defending all of Europe against the short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that Iran actually has.” The NY Times also writes that President Obama “can now argue that the American missile shield will defend both Israel and the Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There are signs that all of them may be interested in nuclear capabilities of their own — especially if they believe that the United States will not stand up to Iran.” Because the new system better protects Israel and other allied Arab states in the Middle East, including those who may be seeking to develop nuclear programs due to a perceived threat from Iran, a key rationale for their development of nuclear programs has now been removed. [Foreign Policy, 10/07/09. The Washington Post, 10/08/09. Arms Control Association, 9/17/09. NY Times, 9/18/09]

Conservatives opponents offer ‘theological’ advocacy for missile defense.  Conservatives have made a number of political attacks regarding the missile defense program.  Defense News reports, that, “Some critics of the Obama plan, including Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, who also addressed the council, charge the revised plan has made America's European allies and deployed U.S. forces less safe against Iranian launches.” Yet as the Washington Post reports, “Tauscher said European allies, who were initially troubled by the hasty announcement canceling the George W. Bush-era system, have come to support the Obama administration's plan, which would permit earlier deployment and provide wider coverage than the earlier one. ‘Remember, this is a NATO-wide European missile defense system as opposed to a bilateral missile defense system,’ she [Tauscher] said.”

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard even referred to the new program as a “policy of Russian appeasement/missile defense surrender.” Yet Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, responded to the president’s decision by saying, “I strongly approve of President Obama's decision regarding missile defense deployments in Europe. I believe it advances U.S. national security interests, supports our allies, and better meets the threats we face.”

Secretary Gates explains the distinction between how pragmatic thinkers approach missile defense and how the ideological advocates of the system approach the subject: “I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.”  [Defense News, 10/07/09. The Washington Post, 10/08/09.  Michael Goldfarb, Weekly Standard, 9/17/09. Brent Scowcroft, 9/18/09. Robert Gates, NY Times, 9/20/09]

Decision to cancel European missile defense program reflects 21st century priorities.  Arms control expert and Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione was blunt in describing the trade-off made by the Obama administration’s cancellation of ground-based missile defense in Europe: “[The administration] replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability.”  In an op-ed for the New York Times, Secretary Gates described how the Administration’s decision was tailored to address existing threats to U.S. interests: “Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan. The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan.”  In addition to the high costs and untested record of ground-based long range missile defense systems, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military continues to serve as the primary deterrent to any potential threats, making the use of ballistic missiles extremely dangerous to our adversaries. An East-West Institute report written in May explains this point, calling the idea of an Iranian long range missile attack on the U.S. or Europe “suicidal,” since “such an attack would inevitably elicit a massive response. Ballistic missiles, after all, have return addresses.” [Joseph Cirincione, 9/17/09. Secretary Gates, 9/20/09. East – West Institute, May 2009]

What We’re Reading

A major car bomb explodes outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 11 Afghan civilian and an Afghan police officer. Back in Washington, President Obama will again meet with military and civilian advisors to debate how to resource the way forward in Afghanistan.

Iraqi advisory neighborhood councils, which were quickly set up following the 2003 invasion, feel powerless as American troops withdraw in conjunction with a lack of support from Iraqi’s national government.

Iran has accused the United States of kidnapping a missing Iranian nuclear scientist.

A sudden coalition of civilian and military opposition to increased America aid to Pakistan’s economic development has shaken US officials.
 
Obama administration officials describe how their revamped missile defense plan for Europe will be linked to Allies’ systems, creating a much wider safety net from ballistic missiles.

Italy’s highest court struck down a law which granted Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi immunity from prosecution while in office.

Representatives from ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and interim leader Roberto Micheletti met directly yesterday, with diplomats hoping for a breakthrough in resolving the political crisis. Meanwhile, Micheletti’s camp has hired lobbyists in Washington.

Columbian youth are actively being recruited by opposing guerilla groups, composing almost 64% of new recruits.

Russian courts ruled in favor of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov’s libel suit against a human rights organization which accused him of murdering human rights activist Natasha Estemirova.

Single mothers in South Korea are starting nascent groups to fight against the cultural stigma of raising children without a husband.

Palestinian officials are reconsidering their acquiescence to American demands not to push forth on an investigation of Israeli war crimes during the Gazan War because of a huge backlash at home.

Commentary of the Day

David Ignatius believes Afghanistan is the test case for President Obama’s commitment to the Obama doctrine: developing and strengthening international rights and responsibilities.

Roger Cohen analyzes President Obama’s recognition of the limits of American power, in stark contrast to previous presidents who often cite American exceptionalism in foreign policy.

Meghan Daum recognizes a tipping point moment in discussing this year’s Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition winner: an essay arguing for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Joel Klein quotes NSN Board member Leslie Gelb while discussing the controversy over President Obama's Afghanistan policy review, which Mr. Klein believes has to do more with politics than policy.