Missile defense on the chopping block?

Posted By Joshua Keating Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 11:25 AM Share

In President Obama's speech on Tuesday, he pledged to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." Could this have been a reference to the planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, on which Obama's views are not exactly clear?

Congressional Democrats, at least, do seem to be taking aim at the system. California Rep. Ellen Tauscher, chairwoman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee is a critic of long-range missile defense, calling for a focus on short- and medium-range defense which have been more rigorously tested:

"Given the need to fund other high priority defense programs, reductions to the missile defense programs may be required."  

Tauscher's subcomittee held a hearing yesterday in which Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, who heads the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, explained that his agency was conducting a review of existing missile defense systems in order to "identify limitations." 

The decision may be out of his hands. With Obama looking to contain costs, the Pentagon has drawn up a list of expensive weapons programs for possible cuts. MDA is on the list along with the Air force's massively expensive F-22 fighter and new destroyers for the Navy. Details on which programs will be cut won't be released until March or April but it's rumored that missile defense will be cut by around $2 billion. 

Some defense analysts see the end of an era:

"There are clear signs that US defense spending peaked in 2008 and that it will be gradually declining over the next four years as the United States reduces its presence in Iraq," Thompson told AFP.

Joseph Cirincione made a persuasive case for cutting missile defense in the May/June 2008 issue of FP.

EXPLORE:MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 
Facebook|Twitter|Digg

ARVAY

11:51 AM ET

February 26, 2009

Arrogance systems

Development and deployment of these absurdly expensive "super weapons" has another bad effect, beyond the waste and provocative nature of some of them -- as with "missile defense" systems.

They nurture a false sense of invulnerability. I write this as a turned-off former watcher of the "Weapons Channel" which never tires of telling us how the next ray-gun, whiz bang "defense" system is going to tip the balance ever so far in our favor.

Once you realize that we're being fought to a stand-still by guys in Afghanistan using assault rifles, and Predators are doing wonders for Taliban recruitment, inflaming local "collaterals" without really hurting the insurgents -- enlightenment follows.

We keep playing with these onanistic devices, while we lose the battles that matter. We kid ourselves into thinking that once again, the Skunk Works will deliver some "game changer." Meanwhile, more US soldiers get taken out by an IED, which the inflamed locals didn't tell us about.

Arrogance, this is called. And stupid arrogance. Not just us -- our Israeli "friends" love to congratulate themselves at being to use our razzle-dazzle killing technology -- which they employ in places like Gaza to make people all over the world hate them, and us, ever more.

 

KROTHROCK

8:41 PM ET

February 26, 2009

Arrogance systems still better than no system at all

Point taken, but as a matter of foreign policy the United States has made some big commitments in Eastern Europe that aren't necessarily wisely abandoned, even if the idea of missile defense is based on either unproven or destabilizing principles.

Perhaps it's better for everyone in the short run if the U.S. disengages from Russia's western frontier and concedes to the Kremlin that America doesn't really need to pump military dollars into a buffer zone there anymore. The danger, though, is risking American credibility in the region and elsewhere. I imagine there are already a hundred other examples one could cite that would make this point about diminished faith in American military might, but for all our current problems and projects in the Middle East, nobody seems to believe that international conflicts with Russia or China are out of the question in the not-to-distant future.

I sympathize with the attitude arvay expresses, but, as a Russia-watcher, I tend to look with raised eyebrows upon statements that the American military should back away from its pursuit of arms hegemony and open its ears to "the world," whatever that is. If the U.S. allows any kind of power vacuum to emerge east of the Rhine, does anyone seriously believe it's going to be filled by a more benign power?

 

ARVAY

11:27 AM ET

February 27, 2009

If memory serves - - -

RE: Our "big commitments in Eastern Europe." As someone who remembers how we encouraged and then double-crossed the Hungarian uprising of 1956, I'm not sure what credibility we've ever had there. Yes, our response to an invasion of West Germany was certain. Beyond that, well . . .
. . .will the US engage in a nuclear exchange to save Estonia?

. . .nobody seems to believe that international conflicts with Russia or China are out of the question in the not-to-distant future.

We'll now's the time to see if we can prevent them, and I don't mean by trying for "arms hegemony."

First of all, as China progresses, and Russia continues to recover, I suspect that "arms hegemony" will be impossible. Russia already has interceptors and air defenses as good as ours, and I wouldn't expect the Chinese to fall short eventually, either. Now is the time to negotiate some tapering off of this maniacal arms race, and try to apply the resources elsewhere.

Second, the idea of "arms hegemony" is a dangerous illusion, not only because it's going to end, but because it encourages our leaders to believe they can project force anywhere and win. As we saw recently in Iraq, the "shock and awe" eventually turned into a nasty, close-range infantry war. And our advanced weapons couldn't overcome the fact that we bobbled the capture/termination of Osama and the Taliban.

. . . diminished faith in American military might . . .

We've done quite a bit to do this by our absurd invasion of Iraq and our ongoing humiliation at the hands of the Taliban. One doesn't have to be a military expert to see that our military is stretched out -- in some places it shouldn't even be -- and only supremely capable in the kind of event that's most unlikely -- a frontal attack by another major power.

If the U.S. allows any kind of power vacuum to emerge east of the Rhine . . .

Allows? Again, there's a kind of otherworldliness to this perspective. And just how would anyone propose that we manage events in this region? If Russia somehow descends into chaos, what would we propose doing?

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More
January/February 2010