Print Print this article Email Email this article Link Trackback

Boom Goes the Dynamite on the Bush Third Site

Kingston | Sep 17, 2009 | there are 3 comments 3
A SM-3 interceptor launch

A SM-3 interceptor launch

By Kingston Reif and Travis Sharp

Big news on the missile defense front today.  The Obama administration announced that it is abandoning the Bush administration's plan to deploy a radar and ten long-range interceptors in Eastern Europe, which were designed to protect Europe and the United States from long-range missile threats from Iran that do not currently exist.  Instead, the Obama administration plans to deploy technically proven SM-3 interceptors, at first based on Aegis destroyers and later based from ground-based sites, which are designed to counter the more immediate threat posed by Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.

We’ve pasted our full response below the jump.  It can also be found at the Center’s website here.  A few highlights:

“The decision to revamp the missile defense plan in Europe is based on technological reality rather than rigid ideology,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “The Obama administration’s proposal is a better choice for U.S. and European security.”
“The proposed interceptors for Poland have not even been built, much less tested. The Obama administration is killing an idea, not a program, and replacing it with a more technologically-promising system,” remarked Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
“The U.S. security commitment to Poland and the Czech Republican remains as steadfast as ever,” added Isaacs. “Framing this decision, which was based on technical factors, as a litmus test of whether the United States is committed to Eastern Europe or willing to stand up to Russia represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.”
I'm sure we'll have more to say on this news in the coming hours and days, particularly as the push-back against the President's decision becomes more and more unhinged.  For now let's quickly address one attack that is gaining some steam in the conservative blogosphere.

Both Rich Lowry over at the Corner and Michael Goldfarb over at the Weekly Standard are quoting the following passage from Obama's Prague speech as if it's evidence that today's decision represents a major "flip flop" on Obama's part:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.
We don't see how today's announcement betrays what Obama said in Prague.  At no point did he commit to moving forward with the Bush administration’s proposal.  He pledged to move forward with “a system that is cost-effective and proven.”  The Bush administration’s proposed system was neither.

For Immediate Release: September 17, 2009
Contact: Travis Sharp

Arms Control Group: Obama’s Revamped European Missile Defense Offers Better Security

Washington, D.C. – In response to the Pentagon’s announcement today that it intends to modify plans for the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, experts at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation concluded that the decision is technically and politically wise.

The Obama administration intends to use SM-3 interceptors, at first based on Aegis destroyers and later based from ground-based sites, instead of going forward with the Bush administration’s plan for ten ground-based interceptors in Poland along with a radar system in the Czech Republic.

“The decision to revamp the missile defense plan in Europe is based on technological reality rather than rigid ideology,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “The Obama administration’s proposal is a better choice for U.S. and European security.”

The Bush administration’s proposed Poland-based interceptor, which would have been a two-stage variant of the three-stage U.S. interceptor already deployed in Alaska and California, has not yet been built and would not even undergo its first test until 2010. The Bush administration’s proposed configuration would not have protected NATO members Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania from current Iranian missile threats because the system was not designed to cover this area. On the other hand, the Obama administration’s SM-3 configuration is designed to protect all of Europe by approximately 2018.

“The proposed interceptors for Poland have not even been built, much less tested. The Obama administration is killing an idea, not a program, and replacing it with a more technologically-promising system,” remarked Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Aegis destroyers are already deployed worldwide and the SM-3 interceptor has proven successful in 19 of 23 tests since 2002. The SM-3 interceptor is also specifically designed to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which are the most dangerous near-term threat posed by Iran. As Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly said earlier this year, “ninety-nine percent of the threat today” is from short- and medium-range missiles.

Iran is years away from possessing the type of long-range ballistic missile that could threaten most of Europe and the continental United States. Though intelligence estimates vary, the broad consensus is that Iran, without substantial foreign assistance (which Western intelligence would likely detect), is not likely to possess a ballistic missile topped with a nuclear weapon capable of threatening all of Europe and/or the United States until 2015 at the very earliest. Under the Obama administration’s plan, upgraded SM-3 interceptors that are more capable of defending against intermediate- and long-range missiles will be deployed as they become available over the next decade. Thus, as the Iranian threat potentially evolves, the U.S. missile defense system will evolve along with it.

While supporters of the European proposal are attempting to characterize the Obama administration’s decision as a sign of a slackening U.S. commitment to Eastern European allies or NATO, this is false. First, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen labeled the Obama administration’s decision “a positive first step.” The U.S. relationship with its NATO allies is crucial for European security, restraining Russian aggressiveness, and retaining support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States is not abandoning missile defense in Europe; it is restructuring capabilities to better counter threats that currently exist.

Second, while Poland and the Czech Republic sought the system in order to secure U.S. support in the face of recent Russian assertiveness, the system was not designed, and the Bush administration reiterated over and over again that it was not intended, to defend these countries against Russia. The United States pledged earlier this year to provide Poland with a Patriot missile battery that will help defend against Russia. The United States also has agreed in recent years to provide Poland and the Czech Republic with F-16 fighters and unmanned aerial vehicles, a sign of Washington’s commitment to their security.  

“The U.S. security commitment to Poland and the Czech Republican remains as steadfast as ever,” added Isaacs. “Framing this decision, which was based on technical factors, as a litmus test of whether the United States is committed to Eastern Europe or willing to stand up to Russia represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.”

tags Security Matters (all tags)


Display:

Poland and BMD

You say "Poland and the Czech Republic sought the system in order to secure U.S. support in the face of recent Russian assertiveness"

My understanding was that this was a U.S. idea, not something that the Poles or Czechs "sought." The deployment is very unpopular in both countries. You are correct in the sense that their focus is on Russia and not Iran. Poland and the Czech Republic accepted the U.S. proposal in order to secure a firmer military commitment from the United States. Before agreeing to it, however, the Poles, in particular, demanded U.S. assistance in upgrading their military and also the deployment of a U.S. Patriot battery to cover them against any adverse Russian reaction to the BMD deployment. (They've been saying lately that the Patriot commitment still holds even if the BMD plan falls through.) The U.S. would not agree to this until after the Russian invasion of Georgia (although most of the news reporting implied it was the Poles who changed their position after the invasion). If the Poles and Czechs are mad now, it will be because the governments had exposed themselves politically at home for something the United States wanted. That, however, is not reason enough to follow through with a bad plan. We will just have to find other ways to make it up to them.

You got it

Scott,

“You are correct in the sense that their focus is on Russia and not Iran.”

That's all I meant. Your analysis is spot on. My point was that for these countries it was all about Russia, not Iran. If the U.S. wants a system focused on Iran, it was right to change the configuration.

Matt Yglesias articulated it well:

"...nobody in Europe particularly wanted this thing built. The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America’s commitment to defend them against Russia. Which is how we wound up situation an anti-Iranian missile shield in a place that doesn’t make sense as an anti-Iranian measure, but does piss off Russia."

[snip]

"This is another example of inane spite-based thinking in foreign policy. Basically the idea is that if the Russians don’t want us to do something, we have to do it because otherwise we’re appeasing them and next thing you know Vladimir Putin will be marching on Paris."

The Health Threat?

"Basically the idea is that if the Russians don’t want us to do something, we have to do it because otherwise we’re appeasing them and next thing you know Vladimir Putin will be marching on Paris."

This is a fascinating perspective when you think about it. If Putin wanted to bankrupt us by getting us to finance only ineffective and counterproductive systems, he would just have to object to them vocally.

I wonder if there is a way to get him to declare publicly financed health care a threat to Russian security.

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.

About This Blog

Search This Blog

Center Analysis

Growth in U.S. Defense Spending Since 2001
The Pentagon's budget has increased dramatically since 2001. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the total defense budget has grown from $432 billion in FY01 to $720 billion in FY11, a real increase of approximately 67 percent. The Pentagon’s base budget, whic...

Lips and Teeth
If it is true that North Korea’s WMD programs are being funded principally from illicit arms sales, then it is imperative that China take its UN Security Council sanctions obligations more seriously. In this new analysis, Chad O'Caroll questions whether t...

FY 2011 Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Funding
In his historic Prague speech on nuclear weapons, President Obama pledged that the United States would lead “a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.” While last year's budget request was wel...

The Obama disarmament paradox: A rebuttal
Greg Mello's recent Bulletin article "The Obama Disarmament Paradox" distorts the Obama administration's nuclear agenda by making unjustified assumptions that discredit President Barack Obama's historic commitment to seek a nuclear-weapon-free w...

Fact Sheet: 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
The Nuclear Posture Review is scheduled for release sometime in March or April 2010. The review will set U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the next five to ten years and influence the implementation of President Obama's far-reaching agenda to reduce the rol...