ARTICLE: "Missile Defense Endorsed by NATO," by Peter Baker, Washington Post, 4 April 2008, p. A1.
If Bush yields on Ukraine and Georgia to win over Putin tentatively on some missile defense deal for Europe, then I think he makes the wrong choice.
Better to expand NATO and take Russian heat than waste diplomatic capital and defense budget on a technology that still does not work worth a darn and whose program life is one, multidecade exercise in contractor and Pentagon and neocon boondoggling.
But of course, we all recognize the great and unyielding bitterness and bloodlust that's long existed between the Persians and the Poles, so there's no arguing the underlying strategic logic.
That this misguided step, especially when it involves blowing off the Georgians--real allies, is touted as a "legacy' success for Bush simply shows you how low this administration has sunk.
Expect more transparent pushes for more meaningless legacies in these past few months, because the real tie-down is already achieved: the next president can--at best--spend his or her entire administration unwinding the Bush mess and "healing" the force. Doesn't mean Bush policies continue, because they can't (too unsustainable). It just means the next president is forced to punt more often than not, meaning Bush has stolen much of the next prez's ability to steer independently.
Remember Joseph's dream: seven fat years followed by seven lean one. You use up the force, you deny your successor its effective use.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
If apocalypse-intent Iranian Mullahs get long range chemical or nuclear missiles, a missile defense system that could work might be better than nothing.
Wouldn't the best scenario be Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO anyway, after the missile defense system is in place and Putin's influence is waning? Maybe they will get complacent about joining NATO but not if the System Administration idea is implemented by the EU or US or NATO or a new East Asian NATO-like force ...
Win - Win??
Posted by VoteWithTroops | April 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Even if the Mullahs were so crazy/stupid, which would be an under-estimation of that opponent, why would they commit themselves to such a frontal attack? Because they are crazy/stupid? I don't buy it.
Plus, the problems of a missile defense system are many--damn those laws of physics. They were present when Reagan proposed his missile shield, and they stubbornly remain here under Bush. The advantage remains with the offense since it's cheaper to produce more missiles/decoys or just go around such a system.
Tom is very much on point here. Our defense budget would be better used elsewhere (and I'll take his blueprint over this boondoogle everytime). This is an empty legacy exercise.
Posted by le0pard13 | April 19, 2008 6:38 PM
I agree we shouldn't sell Georgia/Ukraine short for missle sites. However, I'm not as pessimistic.
The US got NATO's approval for the shield and although did not gain MAPs for the two, got firm written assurances of future membership for each. Both sides saved face and postponed the issue while still getting a promise out of NATO. Seems win win so far. I guess we'll have to wait to see if any further details come out which put this in a different light.
Posted by Chirol | April 20, 2008 1:50 PM
Mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I agree with the notion that this missile-defence system is empty legacy-mongering-- especially since he hasn't offered to share it with the Russians and Chinese.
On the other hand, Ukraine's still trying to figure out which direction it wants to look for its future and Georgia's up to its neck in ethnic strife. Until they solve these problems, concerns about their readiness for full NATO status are justified.
Posted by Michael
|
April 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Show me a missile defence system that works and then we can talk. Years of testing, years of hype and still no discernable working system. Sure asymmetric warfare gets a big rant but if you really want to push chem or bio weapons or a nuclear payload into the States or another Core country you can find ways without playing with ballistic technology. I can think of numerous ways the money could be better spent, border security springs to mind. And how do we secure borders, with more friends willing to patrol theirs with more stringent vigilance.
Posted by David Sutton
|
April 20, 2008 9:20 PM
David,
AEGIS Ballistic missile defense works, it is also the least funded portion by percentage of ballistic missile defense from the Missile Defense Agency. The Navy carries a lot of the bill with its own funding due to that issue.
It is currently a limited capability that can only strike during launch or intercept during the terminal phase, and the Navy has choosen a slow growth plan to insure maturity before investment (because they get so little MDA funding by percentage).
Posted by Galrahn | April 21, 2008 9:14 AM
Not sure what the basis is for all the "it won't work" comments here. Are all of you - including Tom - basing that premise on what you've read in the press or what you actually know about the latest advancements in missile defense? Pretty impressive stuff these days, all the way from target acquisition, to tracking to real time maneuvering. Yes, terrorists would love to sneak a nuke in and detonate it, but there is still the little problem of those pesky "rogue" nations that impulsively might want to launch missiles in desperation (witness Saddam's SCUD barrage against Israel and Saudi Arabia in Gulf War I). The MDA budget ($9.3B in FY09) is more than the Alaskan/Vandenberg deployment (GBI system to protect the US from a limited N. Korean attack). It includes: defending allies and deployed forces from short-to-mid range regional/theater threats; expansion of the US GBI system to defend against limited Iranian long range threats; defend allies in Europe from long range Iranian threats; and expansion of allied and deployed forces protection against short and medium threats in 2 regions/theaters.
As with Pershing II, SDI, and Peacekeeper, sometimes you have to be willing to spend money on technology and limited deployments to change the habits or plans of your potential adversaries. With our resources and technological capabilities, I'm not sure I'm willing to watch Americans digging themselves out from the rubble of Los Angeles or some other city before proclaiming: "My gosh...we need missile defense!" (Now if you really want to save some money, how about shutting down NASA's "People Magazine" Shuttle missions, using a 1970's technology, to conduct high school science experiments in low earth orbit at $300-400M a pop?).
Posted by Blair Stewart | April 21, 2008 2:02 PM