As I stewed over President Obama's surprise introduction of his new plan for European missile defense last week, two important aspects were overlooked by most commenters and analysts. While most on the right (myself included) reflexively reacted with scorn and disbelief at his treatment of steadfast NATO allies and his kowtowing to the Russians, I repeatedly heard and participated in these observations within the halls of the missile defense establishment:
1. European missile defense was never about Eastern Europe; it was always about the Eastern United States.
Regular readers here have heard me make the case countless times. It was no accident --- nor sinister neocon geopolitical masterplan --- that Poland and the Czech Republic were chosen as sites for our defense against long range Iranian ICBMs.
Having never shared the exact nature of the work my team does for the Pentagon and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), I'll give you this glimpse. Utilizing complex, physics-based models & simulations, for the past decade my folks were integral to the systems engineering decisions that led directly to the very precise selection of the long range interceptor site in Poland and the X-Band radar in the Czech Republic. Running several thousand scenarios of hostile ICBM launches out of the Middle East targeting the major population centers of the Eastern United States, we determined that the trajectories and other classified flight characteristics of these threat ICBMs dictated these ideal defensive locations in Europe. Eastern seaboard-bound ICBMs must overfly Europe on their way to their American targets. The mullahs do not select this path, Sir Isaac Newton does.
Which brings us to the gaping hole in Obama's new plan. By scuttling the long range interceptors in Poland, Obama has chosen to make the Eastern (and Southeastern) US more vulnerable. The dirty secret of missile defense is our lack of an East Coast interceptor base. While they can boogie cross-continent to intercept an East Coast ICBM threat very late in its flight, our West Coast interceptors in Alaska and California are primarily tasked with defending against North Korea. Moreover, the very radars that would cue and guide these West Coast interceptors are themselves vulnerable:
The "Third site" in Europe was positioned for long-range ballistic protection for the U.S. Homeland and two early warning missile defense radars in Thule, Greenland and Fylingdales, England as the current and future deployed Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) in Alaska and California are dependent on these two fixed radars sites to protect the U.S. Homeland from long-range missiles from Iran.
While indeed protecting Europe, Obama's new reliance on sea- and land-based SM-3 interceptors is inadequate for the homeland defense scenario (ICBM's fly too fast & too high) --- which, again, was the whole point of Bush's original plan. Obama and Gates simply wished away this strategic hole by wishing away the threat. There is no reason we cannot both defend Europe against short- and medium-range missiles with Obama's system and defend the Eastern United States with long-range interceptors in Poland. We can walk and chew gum...especially when chewing gum means saving New York.
But enough of the Gloomy Gus stuff and on to my second observation, because I am an optimist. Just like a certain president that came up with this concept...
2. Missile defense is FINALLY embraced by the Left.
As the Limbaughs and Becks unloaded on Obama's weakness and betrayal of allies, an utterly amazing transformation occurred right before our eyes: after decades of ridiculing Reagan's vision for missile defense as a silly fantasy --- complete with their own derisive nickname "Star Wars" --- liberals became some of the most strident cheerleaders for missile defense we have ever seen. It was as if Nancy Pelosi suddenly started singing the praises of concealed carry and privatized Social Security while frantically sketching Laffer curves.
Indeed, check out this throaty defense of Obama's plan by Hillary Clinton in front of the lefty Brookings Institute (from an amusingly titled post from an ultra-lib blogger, Clinton: If You Support Missile Defense, You Have To Support Obama):
Let me be clear about what this new system will do, relative to the previous program which was many years from being deployed. With the president’s decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran’s short and medium-range ballistic missiles. We will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program, with more interceptors in more places, and with a better capacity to protect all our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven, so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money, and we will preserve the flexibility to adjust to the threat as the threat evolves.
Writing in the Washington Post today, Andrew Nagorski was as dumbstruck as I:
But now the president has argued that his plan will produce "stronger, smarter, swifter" missile defense than the Bush alternative. In other words, the Obama administration's line, as spelled out by the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others, is unambiguous when it comes to embracing missile defense as a necessary component of the U.S. arsenal.
...
The larger point is that, in political terms, Obama has done for missile defense what Bill Clinton did for welfare reform.
In other words, only Nixon could go to China, and only a doctrinaire liberal like Obama could get the left on board with missile defense.
So while Obama has slashed missile defense, ironically, he has personally ushered in the mainstream acceptance of missile defense as a sound, normal component of our national defense. In that light, Obama indeed killed "Star Wars" last week --- but not missile defense.
And Reagan smiles.
Recent Comments