by Travis Sharp Published in The Register Citizen (Connecticut) on September 21, 2009 While media elites and professional pundits love to frame public policy debates as epic battles of conservative and liberal worldviews, judgments about national security rarely boil down to two stark alternatives. The president typically considers at least a handful of distinct options […]
Hillary Clinton: Opponents of Sensible Missile Defense Policy Don’t Understand the Threats We Face
Some strong comments today from Obama administration officials in response to the many bogus attacks being leveled against yesterday’s decision to refocus U.S. missile defense efforts in Europe.
First, via Spencer Ackerman, Hillary Clinton came out swinging in an appearance this morning at the Brookings Institution. The key paragraph:
So make no mistake: if you support missile defense — which I did, as a senator, for eight years — then this is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is actually supposed to do: it defends America and our allies. Now, I know we’ve heard criticism of this plan from some quarters. But much of that criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, shelving missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush administration planned to do so. And we are deploying a more comprehensive system. We are not reducing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies from Iran. By contrast, we are increasing that capacity, and focusing it on our best understanding of Iran’s current capabilities.
That’s diplo-speak for, well, you know what. Clinton does an excellent job of portraying opponents of the change as out of touch with the real security threats we face and painting their specific objections as the function of misplaced ideology rather than sound and pragmatic strategic thinking.
Second, also via Spencer, in a laughable display earlier today at something called the Value Voters Summit former Gov. Mike Huckabee accused Gates, Cartwright, etc. of secretly opposing yesterday’s decision on missile defense (their vigorous public support notwithstanding):
I heard Ambassador John Bolton, I heard many other people who are really at a point of liberty where they can speak their minds — unlike those in the Pentagon who do answer to the commander in chief and have to answer for his policy decisions — who believe that it was a very significant strategic mistake.
Forget for the moment that Huckabee considers Bolton a voice of reason on national security matters. Does Huckabee also believe that Gates was not being sincere in his opposition to the F-22? And the Airborne Laser? And the Kinetic Energy Interceptor? And the second engine for the F-35? Really? Please.
Asked if he thought the Secretary of Defense was not being forthcoming about his views, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated: “That is not the inference I would draw from Mr. Huckabee’s comments…but if that is what he was trying to imply I would say that Secretary Gates’ support is completely genuine…as is that of Joint Chiefs.”
Boom Goes the Dynamite on the Bush Third Site
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.”
President Obama’s Revamped European Missile Defense Offers Better Security
by Robert G. Gard, John Isaacs, Kingston Reif, and Travis Sharp September 17, 2009 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 […]
U.S. Draft Resolution Commits All States to CTBT
Last Friday, the United States circulated a draft resolution on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament to the UN Security Council. The draft was submitted in anticipation of the September 24 special meeting of the Security Council to be chaired by President Obama.
The draft resolution strongly endorses the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), calling “upon all States to refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), thereby bringing the treaty into force” (emphasis mine).
If finalized in its draft form, the resolution will be only the second Security Council resolution to call on all states to join the CTBT. The first was Resolution 1172, which the Security Council adopted in the wake of India’s and Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests. The new draft resolution is Obama’s first official action to encourage those nations that have not yet ratified the Treaty to do so.
The United States and China are the only Security Council members to have not ratified the CTBT; thus, only China would seem to stand in the way of the draft resolution’s adoption. Yet China signed off on Resolution 1172 and has indicated that it would likely ratify the Treaty following U.S. ratification.
Obama’s draft resolution is a bold move and a clear sign of progress. Not surprisingly, U.S.-proposed Security Council resolutions during the Bush administration never mentioned the CTBT. Together with the decision to send Secretary Clinton to lead a U.S. delegation and deliver a statement to the biennial CTBT “Entry Into Force” conference occurring at the same time as the Security Council’s special meeting, the new draft resolution sends yet another signal to the international community and the U.S. Senate that the Treaty is a key administration priority.
Nonetheless, Obama will not achieve his goal simply through atmospherics in the Security Council. Although the Treaty has strong support on the international stage – 149 states have ratified it – Obama must also mount a major diplomatic effort to convince additional states to ratify. Besides the United States and China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan are the remaining hold-out countries whose ratification is necessary for the agreement to enter into force.
An encouraging sign came in October 2008, when China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan all voted in favor of a UN General Assembly draft resolution supporting the CTBT. The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution. India abstained and North Korea did not participate.
Getting the U.S. Senate to approve the CTBT, of course, is a completely different beast that will require a completely different political strategy. Yet if these initial forays into international diplomacy show that the CTBT will both improve America’s global political position (aka leverage on other issues) and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, the Obama administration will gain compelling evidence that can be used to convince Republicans that they should support the Treaty because it makes the United States safer.
