Missile Shield Shift: Calculation or Capitulation?

UPDATED 2:00 p.m. Sept. 17, 2009

“Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing.”– Robert Gates, U.S. Defense Secretary

Okay, I’ve now examined the details of the new U.S. missile defense strategy and have concluded this is NOT a “shelving” or “scuttling” of European missile defenses, as was widely characterized in reports this morning.

This is more of a recalibration of the plan, which appears designed to downplay, the future land-based system, and possibly fool the Russians into thinking the U.S. has pulled back.

Defense Secretary Gates is as crafty as they come, and the plan he outlined at the Pentagon today sounds like he wants to have his cake and east it, too.

Here’s how he described it:

“In the initial stage we will deploy Aegis ships equipped with SM– 3 interceptors [Standard Missiles], which provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed.  The second phase, about 2015, will involve fielding upgraded land based SM-3s. Consultations have begun with

allies, staring 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.”

Later Gates says, “I would also note that plans to cover most of Europe and add to the defense of the U.S. homeland will continue on about the same schedule as before.”

So while there is an effort to appease the Russians, it looks more like smoke and mirrors, and so I guess Moscow really won’t be all that reassured.

Because while the debate ranges in the U.S. about whether missiles defenses really work, the Russian are area convinced they do, and could potentially someday, neutralize the threat from their vast nuclear arsenal.

So to answer my own question, this looks more like a calculation than a capitulation.

HERE’s MY EARLIER POST, for the record.

President Obama’s decision to shelve the European version of U.S. missile defense strikes me as the wrong decision for the wrong reason.

The Pentagon’s justification for the scuttling hard-won agreements to place interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic, and a radar station in Poland, is that the threat from Iran has abated.

The U.S. – in an effort to appease Russia’s paranoia – had already agreed not to activate the purely defensive system unless and until Iran demonstrated the ability to hit Europe with a long-range missile.

The Pentagon says it most recent intelligence indicates Iran is not as far along as it previously thought in developing that threat, and therefore the counter-measures can be scaled back.

The thing about intelligence is that it is never conclusive, and therefore is subject to manipulation to support whatever policy option the government wants to advance.

Did the Bush administration overstate the threat from Iran to justify its push for European defenses?  Probably.  Is the Obama understating the threat to justify its decision to scale back?  Lets just say, I’m suspicious.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to fund missile defense, so long as it worked.  Perfectly reasonable position.  Nobody wants to send billions down bottomless silo for an unworkable system.

But the Russians are worried about missile defense NOT because they think it’s a boondoggle.  They are convinced the technology IS effective even though it would be of little use against Russia’s vast arsenal.

There’s an old maxim in the intelligence game: “Tell me what you know, and tell me what you think, and make damn sure you make clear which is which.”

Okay here’s what I think.

I think the president wants to cut missile defense in Europe for political reasons, not because the small anti-missile shield wouldn’t work or might not be needed in the foreseeable future, but based on the dubious calculation that Russian cooperation now is worth trading off missile defenses down the road.

I also don’t think you can discount the lure of the savings that come from cutting back on what is a very expensive system, at a time when two wars are raging, and health care reform threatens to run up huge new deficits.

But in scuttling the European option, Mr. Obama is pulling the rug out from under our Czech and Polish allies, both of whom paid a high price domestically on the promise of closer military ties with the United States.

That will hurt when those Iranian missiles suddenly reappear, possibly tipped with nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is years away from having any viable counter to Iranian threats.

Of course, If Russia comes through and helps stop Iran’s nuclear program, it will turn out to have been a smart practical move.

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Tags: Europe, Missile Defense, Obama, Russia