Missile Defense Fiasco

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 12, 2008
All Rights Reserved.                    

         Among the most ominous decisions President-elect Barack Obama faces after sworn in Jan. 20, 2009 is whether or not to go ahead with President George W. Bush’s missile defense program.  Bush’s decision to cut contracts with Boeing Missile Defense Systems, Poland and the Czech Republic sent U.S.-Russian relations plummeting like the U.S. stock market.  Bush insists that growing long-range missile threats from rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea threaten Europe.  Despite no European leader agreeing with Bush’s assessment, the administration was willing to trash relations with the Russian Federation.  Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin vehemently oppose Bush’s plan, promising to deploy more ballistic missiles and to bomb such installations.  Medvedev and Putin believe Bush’s plan threatens Russian national security.

            After showing a lukewarm response to missile defense, Obama now faces pressure from the military industrial establishment.  U.S. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the United States Air Force Missile Defense Agency, warned that national security would be “severely hurt” if the new president didn’t go ahead with missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.  Obering may know something about missile defense but he knows little about “linkage.”  Bush’s unilateral decision has pushed the U.S. and Russia to the closest military confrontation since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have accused Russia of escalating the Cold War, when, in fact, the U.S. marched ahead with missile defense plans on Russia’s border.  Obering insists that missile defense demonstrates U.S. leadership in NATO.

            Without buying into the administration’s logic, Obama must weigh the benefits of missile defense against the deteriorated state of Russian-U.S. relations.  Just like the situation in Iraq, Obama must carefully assess the real risks to Europe of incoming missiles from Iran, North Korea or some other rogue regime.  Bush felt compelled to invade Iraq because he assessed Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as a “gathering” threat to U.S. national security.  While the blustery Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has issued veiled threats against Israel, he’s never uttered one threat against Europe.  North Korea has already engaged in some disarmament, including dismantling its nuclear reactor.  Press reports indicate that North Korea’s unstable dictator Kim Jong Il may be gravely ill, no longer posing the kind of national security threat once imagined.

            During the campaign, Obama expressed reservations about effectiveness of a missile defense shield, given today’s technology.  Missile defense systems have come-and-gone over the last 25 years since the late President Ronald Reagan announced the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative March 23, 1983.  Obering, who retires from his post next week, tried to reassure skeptics that the bugs have been worked out.  Whether or not the system works doesn’t address the advisability of installing interceptor missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic.  With Russia’s objections, Obama must weigh carefully the risks of incoming missiles against a possible military confrontation with Russia.  When Georgia attacked the Russian enclave of South Ossetia Aug. 11, Georgia’s 40-year-old U.S.-backed President Mikhail Saakashvili asked for U.S. and NATO troops.

            During the campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin supported U.S. military intervention.  That put the U.S. into the most dangerous possible confrontation with Russia since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.  They urged NATO to adopt Georgia and the Ukraine, fearing Russian adventurism.  Given the instability in Georgia and Bush’s plans to install missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, Barack faces daunting challenges.  Russia’s foreign ministry warned Aug.. 20 of possible military action should the U.S. move ahead with missile defense.  “In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic channels,” said the foreign ministry communiqué.  “Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,” said Condi.  “It is in our defense that we do this,” ignoring national security risks by ratcheting up Cold War tensions.

            When Barack takes office Jan. 20, 2009, he’ll have to take a hard look at the consequences of implementing missile defense in Eastern Europe.  Bush and Rice warned of impending threats from Iranian missiles.  No other NATO president or foreign minister expressed the same fears.  Antagonizing Russia does little to help U.S. national security.  Promoting a healthy bilateral relationship is the best way to restrain a growing Iranian nuclear threat.  Bush’s preemptive war in Iraq and gunboat diplomacy has left the U.S. more vulnerable to rogue regimes and terrorist networks.  Unilateral military action can only harm already strained relations.  Obama must reassess the real risks and consider the linkage between U.S. actions and Russia’s moves in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and around the globe.  Creating friends in Poland and the Czech Republic at the expense of Russia makes no sense.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.