Missile Nuts

Cheryl Rofer is understandably annoyed by the CSIS-sponsored PONI discussion over the proposed US missile defense sites in Europe. In particular, I suspect that she doesn't like the title "Is Obama throwing Eastern Europe under the bus?" 

The administration was also quick to deny reports that there was a secret agreement in which the U.S. traded missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic for Russian cooperation on Iran.  However, the Obama administration is between a rock and a hard place.  They want to finalize a new START treaty and realize that Russian objections to missile defense could block progress.  At the same time, the administration recognizes that abandoning the proposed sites could be seen as bowing to the demands of Russia.  The editorials pose interesting questions:  If the US does decide to abandon the current proposal for radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, will it increase the threat posed by Iran?  And, will our Eastern European allies feel abandoned?

Cheryl says:

The people of the former Soviet satellites and republics, particularly the older people, are well aware of Russia’s past expansionist tendencies. Russia has stoked those tendencies by the war against Georgia and a continuing propaganda barrage against those who left the Soviet (and before that, Russian) empire.

There was a rush to get into NATO and the EU in the hope that this would end Russian expansionism. And it largely has, but the fear remains, not entirely unjustified.

But the missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland would protect America, not those two countries.

The problem that PONI is exacerbating is massive conflation of the defense of Europe against Russia with defense of America against Iranian missiles. The further problem is that no such Iranian missiles exist, that the installations in the Czech Republic and Poland are not designed to defend those countries, and that nuclear war with Russia is not among today’s top threats.

In other words, the Heritage Foundation is doing exactly what the gun-toters at the Town Halls were doing. The neocon purpose in agitating for the end of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and in placing missile defense in Europe was always to provoke Russia, to strut America’s macho. If Obama doesn’t go through with those missile defense sites, and remember, they’re not built yet, so nothing is being removed, then the neocon macho is damaged.

I think she captures the issue correctly, but I might make one correction, in that Cheryl says that missile defense has never been proven to work. I would say that national missile defense has not been proven, but theater air/missile defense (a la Patriot systems) has certainly been proven under battle conditions. However, there's a considerable scale of difference between theater and national missile defense.  In addition, I would advise PONI posters that, if they want a serious discussion, they really need to avoid making a case using the New York Post and the Heritage Foundation for any sort of statements requiring factual basis.

UPDATE: In fairness, as Greg and Jonah comment, the PONI post does critically view the NY Post and Heritage claims as not particularly valid. But I think that Cheryl and I (if I may speak for her) still feel that PONI is missing the point, that arguing that the Heritage assessments are overwrought but other missile defense alternatives are possible to mitigate the "threat" from Iran and Russia is not the correct solution either. Our point is that the Iranian threat is overblown, that the European allies don't really care about Iranian or Russian missiles (but they like the US money that comes with the sites), and that the more feasible solution is to continue nonproliferation talks with both countries. That way, we can all calm down and stop thinking about missile defense as some kind of magic solution.

Comments

[Cheryl Rofer]

Yes, you're right about theater missile defense.

It's also possible that national missile defense might be useful for the one or two missiles that the dreaded rogue nations might mount, if they had missiles that we needed to worry about.

But there was just too much else wrong with PONI's treatment to go into that kind of detail.

[James]

I would add that Cheryl is not someone who views the Russians with anything like sympathy or complacency.

The notion that Eastern Europe would be shocked or dismayed by the US trading off missile defense is patently absurd. They never wanted missile defense, they had to be heavily bribed to accept it and, as Cheryl points out, the sites aren't even defending them. A sigh of relief is much more likely. Beyond that, it's not like they have anywhere to go with their complaint. Perhaps they'll plead with Putin to install new garrisons in Eastern Europe?

Missile defense has become the ultimate in politicized defense works. Its adherents view the entire world through the lens of missile defense and everything and every event becomes a talking point for missile defense. The enemies and the rationales change, but their lust for missile defense continues unabated. Consider the essential absurdity of their argument: "we need missile defense because we told some second-string allies we were going to build it and we don't want them to lose faith in us." What is the threat, exactly? That Poland might complain the US can't finish a weapon development program? I really don't think that's going to keep me up nights.

Hell, if we're just going to throw money at Eastern Europe, why not wow them by giving them each a squadron of jet fighters? That would smooth things over and offer some genuine military utility besides.

[Ray]

"If the US does decide to abandon the current proposal for radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, will it increase the threat posed by Iran? And, will our Eastern European allies feel abandoned?"
Will the Russians also feel emboldened; internal politics, indicating to their populations that some sort of victory has been obtained.
Cheryl and James echo what a lot should know: Never, ever, view the Russians with complacency.

[Greg Sanders]

I think it's worth noting that the block quotes of the NY Post article and the Heritage article was immediately followed by:

"There are a number of problems with these objections."

"These" being Heritage/the NY Post.

They also note that what the Eastern Europeans are probably really after:

"This is especially true if you consider why Eastern European countries want missile defense in the first place. While they are worried about the threat posed by Iran, countries like Poland are more concerned with the deterrent benefits (against Russia) that come from having U.S. troops on their soil."

(Full disclosure, not a PONI person, but I do have friends that are PONI people.)

[Jonah Feldman]

You have incorrectly read the original PONI blog, I urge you to look at it again. PONI first lays out the arguments made in the New York Post and Heritage Foundation publication and then refutes those arguments. Start reading at:

"There are a number of problems with these objections. First, alternative to the third site are not as bad as they’re made out to be. Sea-based missile defense has proven to be fairly effective."

[Greg Sanders]

Thanks for the update, you make a fair point.

[jwarden]

A response to your concerns was just posted on the CSIS PONI blog: http://forums.csis.org/poni/?p=315

[Cheryl Rofer]

J. has my position right in his update. It took a lot of reading through the PONI post to find disagreement with Heritage, and that disagreement, as I noted, accepted far too many of Heritage's assumptions. I made my point through snark rather than directly, though, so I suppose it's possible to miss it.

I've just skimmed through jwarden's response at PONI. One suggestion that applies to the response and the original post: brevity is the soul of blogging. I'll read it again and perhaps post a response back at Phronesisaical.

[Cheryl Rofer]

Response here.

[parvati_roma]

Sez-who the Czechs and Poles ever really-really "wanted" US missile defence installations on their soil in the first place?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/18/czech.missiles/index.html

March 18, 2009
The Czech prime minister canceled a vote to allow the United States to put a key part of its planned missile defense system in the Central European country, the government announced late Tuesday.
Prime Minister Miroslav Topolanek said he called off the vote for fear his government would lose but added he could still put the two treaties up for a vote in parliament at a later date...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-168643241.html

Support for U.S. missile defense at 58% in Poland, 38% in Czech Republic - poll.

Czech mayors say US Missile Defence in Europe is fueling a new nuclear arms race

http://www.cepa.org/ced/view.aspx?record_id=59

Sikorski basically believed the shield would benefit Poland, provided that the Americans threw in something substantial, such as the Patriots. Both Prime Minister Kaczyński and his twin-brother, President Lech Kaczyński, laid stress elsewhere: that if it was possible to bargain something from the Americans, then very well, but if not, then Poland should take the shield anyway, because it tied Poland more strongly to the United States, which was a value not to be underestimated.

In the autumn of 2007 PM Donald Tusk joined the fray. His view proved to be even tougher than Sikorski’s. Tusk was making a strategic shift “towards Europe.” He realized that the Polish public was skeptical about the shield and didn’t really care about the project itself, unless the Americans gave Poland something really substantial in return – something he would be able to sell to the public as a major success.

In the period since Tusk’s liberal Civic Platform (PO) party came to office, missile defense has unfortunately became a subject of sharp political conflict between Tusk and the Kaczyński brothers. Tusk has tried to portray the Kaczyńskis as dogs on an American leash, willing to give Bush anything he wants. (...)

Doesn't sound like 100% enthusiasm to me???