Ben Smith at Politico.com asks: What does U.S. get for missile move? and, indeed, much of the discussion of the move has focused on what affect it may or may not have on the Russians.

Now, it is entirely possible that the Obama administration made the move to try and change the Russians’ minds about sanctions on Iran.

However, my question is this: what if the administration actually thinks that the missile shield won’t work and would be a waste of resources? Is that really so hard to grasp?

I can appreciate the notion that some have more faith in the system than do others, and I can accept that there is a debate as to the exact short, medium, and long-term threat posed by currently non-existent North Korean and Iranian ICBMs, but much of the coverage and almost all of the commentary on this issue have treated the system as proven and the threat as if it consisted of loaded launchpads. Could we at least deal in facts when discussing these matters?

Beyond that, one other problem with the discussion: a decision not to build these two bases does not constitute the “abandonment” of Poland or the Czech Republic. As I noted yesterday, both are members of NATO, a mutual self-defense pact that requires member states to come to the aid of other members if attacked. Beyond that, there is not indication that I have seen that there will be no defense/security arrangements with these countries, just that there has been a decision not to build some specific installations.

Along those lines, I would recommend that persons who believe that the US is “abandoning” Europe defense-wise, please read the transcript of Secretary Gates’ press conference, wherein he said, amongst other things:

we have now the opportunity to deploy new sensors and interceptors, in northern and southern Europe, that near-term can provide missile defense coverage against more immediate threats from Iran or others.

In the initial stage, we will deploy Aegis ships equipped with SM-3 interceptors, which provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed.

The second phase, about 2024, will involve fielding upgraded, land-based SM-3s. Consultations have begun with allies, starting with Poland and the Czech Republic, about hosting a land-based version of the SM-3 and other components of the system. Basing some interceptors on land will provide additional coverage and save costs compared to a purely sea-based approach.

Over time, this architecture is designed to continually incorporate new and more effective technologies, as well as more interceptors, expanding the range of coverage, improving our ability to knock down multiple targets and increasing the survivability of the overall system.

I would recommend reading the whole thing–or, at least, Gates’ basic statement.

This hardly sounds like “abandonment” and indeed, it doesn’t even sound like as major a shift in terms of a missile shield than all the hysteria yesterday would have suggested.

Could it be that the announcement yesterday was what it purported to be, i.e., a decision based on technical and intelligence grounds and nothing more?

9 Responses to “A Question (or Two) about the Missile Shield Move”

1. Buckland Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 8:23 am

   First — I think they probably need a History Czar in the White House. At least then they wouldn’t announce the abandonment of Poland on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

   This, like the recent tire protectionism announcement, is nothing but a bone to the left wing to try to get them on board for the healthcare reform. The left has hated missile defense since Reagan started talking about it.

   If this was nothing but a well thought out change of direction, why was the senate so surprised? Not only serious Republicans like Lugar were surprised but serious Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson have complained.

   There’s a reason that decisions like this are announced quickly — their justifications don’t stand up to the light of day. Expect more of these ‘Boob bait for the Bubbas’ announcements to pacify the left and make up for nondeliverance of their top priorities.

2. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 8:49 am

   Or, as I suggest in the piece, they actually had reasons for the policy shift (again: read what Gates said).

   And I think far too much is being made of the anniversary of the Soviet invasion anniversary. Would the criticisms been any less if it was on some other date?

   Also, huh?
   

   ‘Boob bait for the Bubbas’

   Since when is the left characterized as “Bubbas”?

3. B. Minich Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 8:53 am

   The interesting part of all this is that really, these land based systems don’t work and the sea based systems do. So this makes total sense to me. We’re not abandoning anybody - just pulling non working missile defense systems out of countries where they antagonize obstensible allies. I mean, really, why bother riling up the Russians over something that doesn’t work? Its the height of diplomatic stupidity. If we’re going to get the Russians mad, I’d rather fight over something effective.

4. Leonard Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 9:10 am

   I can appreciate the notion that some have more faith in the system than do others, and I can accept that there is a debate as to the exact short, medium, and long-term threat posed by currently non-existent North Korean and Iranian ICBMs, but much of the coverage and almost all of the commentary on this issue have treated the system as proven and the threat as if it consisted of loaded launchpads. Could we at least deal in facts when discussing these matters?

   That’s the problem with faith-based discussions. Facts are always optional, and are often actively detrimental to the discussion.

5. Buckland Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 9:56 am

   Or, as I suggest in the piece, they actually had reasons for the policy shift

   If it was a real policy change, why surprise the Senate foreign policy apparatus. The right way to do such things for a real shift is to inform the Congressional foreign policy committees, get feedback, and then make the changes.

   And I think far too much is being made of the anniversary of the Soviet invasion anniversary. Would the criticisms been any less if it was on some other date?

   Possibly not, but maybe the Polish PM would have at least taken the president’s call on the subject. I’m guessing the Poles, our closest ally in Eastern Europe, think that too much is being made of the date.

   Boob bait for the Bubbas? I actually struggled with that one. There’s not to my knowledge a good similar phrase for the left — Gnats for the nutroots, Licorice for the limousine liberals, M&M’s for the Moonbats? Just doesn’t work as well.

6. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 9:59 am

   Leonard,

   Yes, I did choose that word knowingly.

   Buckland,

   I can accept the criticism that it wasn’t handled properly–and based on press accounts this appears to be the case. However one cannot logically state that the way it was handled proves anything about why it was done.

7. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 9:59 am

   Oh, and in re: Boob Bait for Bubbas, it sounds like a way to get Bill Clinton out of the house…

8. walt moffett Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 10:02 am

   Question is difficult to answer since the news coverage has been contradictory here in the states.

   However, won’t be surprised to discover there are a few Czechs and Poles with very long memories along with old cold warriors.

9. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Obama’s Missile Defense Decision: No, It’s Not Appeasement Says:
   September 18th, 2024 at 11:36 am

   [...] when you look at the decision rationally, it’s pretty clear that it wasn’t an abandonment at all: A decision not to build these two bases does not constitute the “abandonment” of Poland or the [...]

Leave a Reply