The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed Thursday that a “major adjustment” is planned and said the decision was made to better protect U.S. forces and allies in Europe from Iranian missile attacks.
The U.S. is basing its move on a determination that Iran’s long-range-missile program hasn’t progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.
According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration. This represents a complete capitulation to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who had demanded that the proposed deployments be halted as a price for improved relations. Ironically, the Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran.
The consequences of this action in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine and in other countries that feel vulnerable to Russian power, will be disastrous. It is a major American retreat in the face of Russian bullying. And we will get absolutely nothing for it.
I’ll wait for Larison’s take, but I will say this- what would you think if China or Russia were building missile sites in Mexico, Cuba, and Puerto Rico? How do you think we would react to that?
One hardly knows where to begin. George W. Bush established, as even the Times concedes, “a special relationship” with Eastern Europe. After all, these are countries that emerged from the yoke of Communism and struggled to establish new market-based economies that avoided the errors of their Western socialist neighbors. And these countries again and again demonstrated their pro-American bona fides. The missile shield was intended as a check against Russian aggression and a symbol of their robust relationship with the U.S.
So much for that. Obama is in the business of kowtowing to the world’s bullies. Russia didn’t like the missile shield, so no more missile shield. Do we think we “got something” for this? I’d be shocked if we did, given the obvious willingness of the U.S. to prostrate itself before rivals.
1. Iran might someday at some point acquire this missile capability and then decide what it wants to do is blackmail European countries into giving it all their gold coins.
2. Russia isn’t an important country and even if it were, the United States ought to cherish the memory of when it was cool to provoke it.
Eric Edelman, the second Bush-administration undersecretary of defense for policy, tells The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Spiegel that he saw intelligence reports on the pace at which Iran is making technological progress on long-range missiles. But you know who sees more intelligence reports on those missiles? Edelman’s former boss, Defense Secretary Bob Gates. If Gates, the model of a pragmatic defense secretary who often discusses the need to reset defense policy around “real” and not “hypothetical” threats, doesn’t see an actual cost to U.S. or allied security, then none exists.
I hope it’s not true. Just like I hope it’s not true, as Newsweek is claiming, that U.S. intel still seriously believes Iran isn’t working on a bomb. European intelligence agencies have been laughing at that claim for years, from the British back in 2007 to Nicolas Sarkozy just this morning. In fact, as I’ve mentioned a bunch of times on HA previously, the very same NIE that claimed Iran had stopped its bomb program also claimed that it had 10-15 secret nuclear sites devoted to god knows what. The Newsweek piece smells like spin leaked by the administration to buy Obama some more time with the public for Iran negotiations, just like Israel’s threat of having to attack before December unless heavy sanctions are imposed is spin the other way. Exit question: If Iran’s such a serious threat, what’s The One doing taking Europe’s missile defense shield away?
That keening you hear is the sound of a million wailing wingnuts. The Poles and Czechs will be disappointed, but they’ll live; there are other ways of conveying a long term commitment to Eastern European security if we so choose. Indeed, some of these ways might actually have something to do with Eastern European security, rather than with a set of expensive techno-fantasies jury-rigged to a manufactured geo-strategic threat. Nevertheless, the screech of “EMP!!!” is one that you can get used to hearing in the near future; no President actually born in the United States would be so dismissive of ineffectually (but expensively!) protecting America from non-existent boogeymen.
Let’s be clear; this is a huge victory for common sense over fantasy, and for responsible defense budgeting. This project had no function other than to serve the pecuniary interest of the missile defense industry, and to sate the ideological lust of conservatives infatuated with St. Reagan. No convincing strategic logic could ever be provided for the program; advocates careened wildly between arguments, desperately trying to see if they could make anything stick. Protecting Europe from Iranian missiles? Nobody in Europe was particularly concerned, or, outside of Poland and the Czech Republic, really wanted the defense. Protecting from the Russians? By the admission of advocates, the shield could not have served as a deterrent to Russian attacks. Necessary to demonstrate our commitment to the Poles? Meh; I’d rather get them something they could actually use.
September 17, 2009...10:47 am
We’re Canceling Our Order Of Fries
Peter Spiegel at WSJ:
Michael Goldfarb at TWS:
Laura Rozen at Politico
John Cole:
Jennifer Rubin in Commentary:
Spencer Ackerman at Washington Independent:
Allah Pundit:
Robert Farley:
Jonathan Adler
UPDATE: Kay Granger at NRO
Daniel Larison
UPDATE #2: Robert Farley and Michael Goldfarb at Bloggingheads
Leave a Comment
Filed under Foreign Affairs, Military Issues
Tags: Allah Pundit, Bloggingheads, Commentary, Daniel Larison, Foreign Affairs, Jennifer Rubin, John Cole, Kay Granger, Laura Rozen, Michael Goldfarb, Military Issues, National Review, Peter Spiegel, Politico, Robert Farley, Spencer Ackerman, The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, Washington Independent