BECKLEY— It appears President Obama has updated our missile defense plans in Europe. Why? Has he turned coward and run from Russia? What is this talk about Iran? How does this change our relationships with the Czech Republic and Poland? This raises many questions in the world of geopolitics, military strategy, diplomacy and potential warfare. First, the facts directly from the horses mouth.
The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture.
—“Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy” Los Angeles Times, September 17th, 2009
The “technology” of this is beyond my understanding honestly. Perhaps, there has been an evolution in interceptor technology in the last few years and as the Administration points out they can get the same result. I am somewhat skeptical however due to the Administrations lack of integrity on multiple other issues. The first issue though is what they seem to “point” to primarily as the cause for this “switch” in plans.
The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated. In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel military and civilian and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.
—”Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy” Los Angeles Times, September 17th, 2009
This seems to me a convenient excuse for President Obama to side step the issue of Russia as though something has changed in Iran. My first question to the Administration is what has changed in Russia. Is Russia no longer a long-term strategic threat? Again from the horses mouth…
We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests. We have repeatedly made clear to Russia that missile defense in Europe poses no threat to its strategic deterrent. Rather, the purpose is to strengthen defenses against the growing Iranian missile threat.
—”Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy” Los Angeles Times, September 17th, 2009
Never mind that Russia is an ally of Iran. Russia may no longer be the super power that it once was but it indeed aspires to that status once again and with a rather rapidly growing Islamic population to boot. Missile defense is a long-range and some what experimental process from my understanding. So, it would seem that the current political administration deems the growth of Islam in Russia and Russia’s increased aggressiveness in foreign politics (i.e. the Georgia incident back a few months ago) to name only a couple of things as non-threats in the long-term. This is childish and dangerous.
However, taking the Iran excuse at face value still raises other issues. While, yes perhaps, Iran is focusing on short and medium range missiles they also must be making some progress on ICBM’s because it was only recently announced that Iran has placed a satellite in orbit as a direct challenge to Obama according to the NY Times. I’m not directly sure what the difference is between an ICBM capability and satellite capability but one would imagine it wouldn’t be all that much. So why trade a bunch of patriots for ICBM defense. Personally, my thought is why not have both.
I have writen about the subject of missile defense previously and would like to point out like a did then that it is common understanding that to “achieve peace one must prepare for war”. I think both the rise of Islam and the rise of Russia hold long-term strategic threats to the United States and our allies. Also, as I wrote in the previously mentioned post missile defense is a multifaceted issue including economics, politics, and more. However, from an American standpoint, being that this is where my national sentiments lay for now, I believe the issue should be primarily a military one. For the USA to assume that over the next 20+ years that Russia (as well as others such as China) will not be a threat is a somewhat childish fantasy. Things can and do change; power ebbs and flows from one country to another (in this instance from us to Russia). So in the end it comes down to the questions of strategic superiority as well as tactical reasons. Missile defense forces tactical changes on the battlefield forcing enemies to potentially choose different ground to fight on or different deployment options. At the same time missile defense in my mind increases strategic superiority. At this time in history for example NATO is strategically superior than Russia. This is countered by Russia’s nuclear weapons. No invasion could be made on Russia due to its nuclear weapons, while Russia cannot invade due to NATO’s strategically superior force. Missile defense (that is ICBM defense) against Russia (and Iran in time) swings that balance of power in favor of the NATO and the United States. This decision by Obama seems to undermine the military principle of offense. It places us in a defensive position not an aggressive one against both Iran and Russia. For those whose national interests lay with NATO and the U.S. this is a lose not a win.
It is also apparent that this decision will not increase our intelligence gathering capabilities. The Russians opposed the missile defense on the grounds that it was basically spy-ware on their doorstep. Something that was never strongly refuted from anything I’ve read! As such it would have probably been a tool for information gathering and in line with the military principle of intelligence. However, must obviously this violates the important principle of security in that we are deciding to leave a flank open in order to protect another flank – military history tells us that is just plain stupid!
Finally, on a diplomatic front Obama has obviously given Russia something they wanted. My father is a lawyer and one of the things I learned from him is a little about negotiations. Sometimes in negotiations you have to give up something valuable – this is why it is a negotiation. However, the FIRST rule of negotiations is always get something in return first. What has Russia given the U.S. in return? Nothing.
In summary, Obama thinks Russia is not a threat in the long-term which is a prideful assumption given Russia’s treatment of its neighboring countries regarding natural gas among other issues. He acknowledges the Iranian threat of small to medium range missiles but refutes their long range capabilities while there is proof towards its current development. Finally, Obama’s weak leadership has failed to follow the first key rule of negotations which is when you give something you get something. This is a mistake on the part of the United States.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
I don’t know if this is for sure a mistake. It is very reasonable to believe that new intellegence suggests a different path. Second it is reasonable to believe that new technology, high powered radar, improvements to existing systems and live action results of existing interceptors make for a better, different strategy.
The August issue of Physics Today contains an article titled “Obama and Medvedev set new limits on nuclear arsenals; further cuts likely.” In the article a discussion of nuclear arms includes a discriptive chart. “US and Russian nuclear weapons 2009.” According to the chart, the US has 9,400 total nuclear weapons in inventory. Russia has approximately 13,000. This information is followed by a disclaimer: “No reliable public estimates are available for the number of warheads in the Russian reserve or total stockpile or that are awaiting dismantlement.”
Russia has higher stockpiles, but their terrible economic situation from 1990 through the middle part of this decade led them to neglect it, from what I understand. My guess is that the quality of their stockpile isn’t nearly as good as ours.
I’d be the first to admit this is probably one of my weaker subjects although assuredly one of the more important. Diplomacy and defense should be based a great deal on intelligence something I’m not privy too.
If this is a good thing then shame on Mitt Romeny, McCain and others that are more in the “know” then I. As this morning I have been reading how some of them agree with at least some of my views.
As for the path, as I point out in the missive, it is to back away from ICBM defense. While at the same time Iran has recently launched a satellite – again to me (non-science minded) this seems similar.
At the very least it appears as though Obama has taken it on the chin from the Russian’s just based on my “first rule” of negotiations. At least politically one would think he’d appear to get something in return here for caving to protect himself and his party politically.
I’m not able to updated the post for some reason. So here is my updated in the comments.
UPDATE — It appears the Polish thought this missile defense plan was as much about Russia as Iran.
This may explain why they are snubbing our Administration.
Yes, I could be mistaken as well. But quite frankly I don’t know and so far can’t make a sound judgement on whether this was a good thing or bad thing. So far it seems to be split down ideological political lines which offers little insite into what the truth is…
But I did always figure it was more about Russia than Iran which is why I posted the weapons details… I think part of the disparity between the numbers began when the US withdrew from MAD. No need to have as many as Russia if we have the means to shoot down most of their shots… But again, this isn’t my area of knowledge…
I have done some work in this area in a past life, and the physics of tactical ballistic missile defense are very complex. Many moving parts, variables, and narrow windows of opportunity. The fact is in almost every sense, you have to be ready and waiting to make it work. The advantage to the mobile Aegis based systems is that they are effective and can be placed anywhere in the world in a relatively short period of time. The bad news is they have to be there when the button is pushed, which infers we have good prior intelligence. This may not be the case. They also have to be set up and ready.
The fixed sites are always there, and always watching, but with a little intel enemies can find out where they are and work around them. Even destroy, disable, or jam them.
At the end of the day neither system is 100% effective, The reality is we really do not know how effective they would be in an operational situation…until we have to use them that is. Luckily, that has not happened…yet.
I agree with FT though. All things considered, all diplomacy is based on negotiation. If you do not have something the other party wants, then there is no real motivation to negotiate. Where Obama has blundered is that, as FT stated, he gave away his chips without forcing the hand.
Now what motivation would Putin have to comply with US wishes in Iran? Where is the quid pro quo? Unless Obama has another compelling offer, I fear the ship has sailed on this one. I say – bad move. Goodwill has never been an effective motivator.
Love your guys site. Great topics. Swing by http://headmuscle.wordpress.com sometime when you have a chance. Would love the dialog.
Chuck – we’ve enjoyed you dropping by. And you have a great blog as well.
TP – Can you add Chuck to the blogroll?
Chuck, thanks for the great comment. As I understand it this is like a great big expensive science experiment to begin with as you say nobody knows until it is actually used. But we’ve given up a piece of it now regardless. Perhaps it was a worthless piece, obviously the Russians didn’t know that now they do…
Chuck – I think you summed up my thoughts on this as well (with just a touch more sophistication).
From a purely military standpoint, I was at first shocked he gave up the missile defense shield. But then the alternative was offered of using the mobile Aegis based system. I am open to shifting strategy here, if people “in-the-know” think the Aegis-based systems are better. It helps me that Robert Gates is in on this one as well. He’s one of the few Administration officials I really like.
However, I think you both are correct- the timing of this was bad. Obama gave it all up and got nothing in return. I think this is the first truly liberal, flower-in-your-hair, move Obama has made in my book (on a grand scale, that is). I think he genuinely believes that we are the first to give up something up without asking for very much in return, then Russia will view it as a gesture of goodwill and it will thaw our sometimes tense relationship.
One part of me really wished the world worked that way. I think that is many times the best route to take in personal, one-on-one relationships. I think that sort of method is really sacrificial and Christ-like, after all.
But these things become incredibly more complex when you are president of the United States and your decisions impact the safety of 100s of millions of people. And especially when the people opposing you are ideologically driven and have already shown signs of unilateral, military aggressiveness towards allies (e.g. Georgia). I just don’t think you can risk this method when it puts so many other lives at risk. Better to make sure you get something in return.
I think this was at least in some small way a play to his liberal base. Libs have hated missile defense for as long as it has been discussed. I remember being on a debate team in college and libs would bring that topic up all the time, way back in the Clinton administration. They hated it- they said it would be viewed as a form of aggression by others and would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you put it up, you encourage your enemies to build weapons to overcome it. But I always argued that was a chicken-and-the-egg debate. And with so many lives at risk and with the technology to build long-range missiles so prolific and with so many rogue, ideological regimes out there, better to be safe than sorry. (I never won on that line of reasoning though- wasn’t liberal enough for our judges).
Anyway – good topic.
Steve,
In a way this is very similar to the Taiwan / China / North Korea triangle, except it is Poland / Russia / Iran.
The reason that we have had a certain amount of success in the first group is that we have never abandoned Taiwan. This gives us a strong bargaining position with China on Korea.
In the second triangle, we have already abandoned Poland, so now we have no balance in the triangle and a disenfranchised ally who may not be willing to play our game anymore. Why would they?
I think he has created a real mess.
Good comparison. I agree. This was a bold move by Obama, but a dumb one in my book. Like hugging Hugo Chavez, or bowing to the Saudis, or stalling on troop increases in Afghanistan, it will be viewed as an act of weakness by our enemies. Interesting pattern from a guy who views himself as a strategic, international thinker above all else (according to his closest friends).
There’s still a lot going on behind the scenes, though, according to Politico. Interesting that the Polish PM did not initially take Obama’s call on the matter, because he wanted to “prepare” for the call.
Politico goes on to say:
“The Polish preparation may have paid off however: They are reportedly angling for an American commitment of Patriot missile systems based in Poland, which Poles see, like the larger missile-defense bases, as a partial guarantee against Russian agression (despite American denials that the defenses are aimed at Russia).
“I would not describe what is going on today as a defeat for Poland,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw, according to the AP, saying Obama had signaled that “Poland has a chance to win an exclusive position” in the new system.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html