Dunno about you, but when I read this statement concerning the president’s plan to change course on Eastern European-based ballistic missile defenses, George Orwell came to mind:
“After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff to strengthen America’s defenses against ballistic-missile attack,” President Barack Obama said in an announcement Thursday morning.
He strengthened our defenses by eliminating them, you see. It is as flawless a gem of reason and logic as I have seen come out of Washington in months. Which might be saying something.
Or might not.
On the bright side, the president has finally found a way to distance himself from his predecessor’s foreign policy – GTMO, renditions, and distant wars have proven harder to undo than they had looked from the stump, and you only get one worldwide apology tour before the natives start to get restless.
That he did so at the expense of our national security is bad enough. Throwing Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus is just a side benefit: Their governments expended considerable political capital at home agreeing to host the interceptor/radar suite designed to 1) counter the threat of long-range intimidation of our cultural allies from Iran and North Korea, and 2) bring eastern Europe into a strategic partnership with the Atlantic Alliance. But the latter purpose gave Russia’s once-and-future king czar Vladimir Putin a case of the hives however. The administration no doubt hopes that this unilateral action will help press Hillary Clinton’s “reset” button.
If so, this is a notion that Moscow was quick to quash:
Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return.
Heavens no, why should they? We’re giving it away.
All of this evokes a different Englishman entirely in the mind of history fan Jules, who also notes the auspiciousness of this particular date:
This is a much better deal for the neo-Stalinists than (Molotov-Ribbentrop) was. Cutting deals with Hitler was a predictably dodgy game, destined to end badly … as any fool could see given what Hitler was doing with the Munich Agreement. So the Obama-Putin Iranian Nuclear Disarmament/Eastern European Betrayal Pact is more like if Stalin had cut a deal with Chamberlain on, say, Sept. 2, 1939, to help contain Hitler. Or maybe like Hitler cutting a deal with Chamberlain to keep Mussolini in line.
History: tragedy, farce.
Update: Michael Goldfarb winds the clock all the way back to the president’s BMD speech in April of this year -
“So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.” — Barack Obama
All changed, changed utterly.
So, Lex, you don’t understand how this strengthens our missile defense? Really, I don’t understand either. I guess we are both equally dense on this matter. Maybe if we join VX in a couple rounds of his favorite fermented and distilled sugary adult beverage we might begin to understand. If not, at least we’ll feel better about it for a little while.
[...] what O has to say about it, via WSJ. Neptunus Lex is getting an Orwell feel off it: “After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous [...]
Double-Plus Ungood!
In unrelated news, the United States Constitution was adopted 222 years ago today.
All very logical.
Weaken our defense
Wait for the equivalent of the Reichstag Fire
Then
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
[...] on the new missile defense stance of the United States, via WSJ. Neptunus Lex is getting an Orwell feel off it: “After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous [...]
I’m trying to decide who should take kneepads on their next trip to Russia? Hiliary or Obama.
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2009/09/%E2%80%9Ctime-running-out%E2%80%9D-prevent-nuclear-iran
Sorry, ain’t doing the html embed thingie. But I’m certainly confused when a bipartisan group says “prepare to bomb Iran” whilst we disarm on the other side. Putin has made a deal with Iran, we all know it. I am sure their sats pickup and report to Iran any afterburning launch out of Israel, so the Iranians know what is coming when. And Putin probably told Netanyahu as much.
of course, this is all predicated on assessments that Iran is not as far along developing long range lawn darts as we thought previously. Hmmmm. Kind of the same assessment that NK was not working on nucle – BOOM – oh oh, scarp that first one, time for another re-assessment.
Anyone still want to challenge my opinion that BHO is an amateur?
To me, Lewis Carrol comes to mind … straight out of Alice in Wonderland
Yes, to be able to think of “six impossible things before breakfast” is a skill Obama seems to have mastered quite well along with the Red Queen–and he is also obviously possessed of an equally imperious personality to match.
Dust/
The word “amateur” implies–to my mind at least– a modicum at the minimum of skill and knowledge about the subject matter studied or being worked with (such as sports.) To be labeled even an amateur one has to have at least a nodding acquaintance with the subject at hand–however poorly one is thought to perform or handle the subject matter at hand.. I’m afraid you’re using the wrong word, Dust.
Dust – P.BO is an amateur and so is Mr. Gaffetastic:
“The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America,” he said.
Oh yeah, I’m so much more comforted that Biden is “much less concerned” than his boss was barely 5 months ago.
Then there is this from the Gaffe’r:
Biden said he is “deeply” involved in the review of the missile defense program.
Yup – warm and fuzzies are growing. Or is that just the radiant heat coming from Iran’s nuclear cough energy program…
And just so P.BO’s position on this is, um, perfectly clear, we have this from a campaign speech in 2008 when he famously spoke about meeting with leaders without preconditions:
I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’
Yup – we are dealing with mental giants here… /sarc
It’s a bit unfair to compare Obama with Neville Chamerlain…unfair to Chamberlain, that is.
Although Chamberlain pursued an unwise policy of appeasement, he also hedged this policy by investing heavily in Britain’s defenses, including production of the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters and the radar/communications-based air defense network. Haven’t seen much of that sort of thing from Obama.
Indeed, if Chamberlain had shared Obama’s attitudes toward defense programs, Britain probably would have lost the war.
True. Even Churchill acknowledged Chamberlain’s honesty – something Obama lacks utterly.
On the topic of expertise, let us not discount former congresswoman Ellen Tauscher from the East Bay in California. Ms. Tauscher, now serving as the president’s under secretary of state for arms control and international security is winging her way to Eastern Europe to explain the president’s decision. She received her BS in Early Childhood Education from Seton Hall in 1974.
That’s a bit of a cheap shot, Lex .
How many Naval Aviators did you know and respect as leaders and aviators who had history or poli sci degrees? More than one, I’ll bet.
Maybe you’re right. After all, *I* had a poly sci degree (if no great deal of self-respect). But it seems to me that arms control and international relations are pretty technical subjects. It’s quite possible that Ms. Tauscher picked up on the basics somewhere along the way. I just don’t see anywhere in her CV where that might have been.
Hell Lex, Ellen baby is no more nor no less qualified than her boss! So whats the probs? Pickey, pickey, pickey…..
Wish I’d have kept the divine Miss T’s response to my urgings to support BMD in the late 90’s, being then my Congressional, um, Representative. Essentially her thought was “While I respect your opinion, Mr. Mongo, I strongly disagree. Go pound sand…forcibly…and repeatedly…”
Ms. Tauscher is one of those throwbacks to the notion of ‘What if they threw a war, but nobody came?’. Fits right in with the Headmaster.
Agree with the total lack of evidence in her training, experience and peer group that she is qualified for her position. The fact that she married a former Marine pilot in no way mitigates her apparent lack of creds for the job she took.
Ones college degree often (usually?) has no bearing on what the person ends up making as a career choice. One of my best friends has a Harvard undergrad in Anthropology, with an MA from Chicago in same. In the twenty plus years that I have known him he has always been in the security field. Go figure. (He reminds me of Feynman)
IMO it was Tauscher’s experience as a Congressperson from San Francisco, and all that entails, that got her the job.
Thanks for the scare, Lex. I just read over her CV and then went back and looked at the CV of her predecessor.
What the heck is this person doing representing the US in arms control and international security? K-12 education issues, I can see that. But arms control???
Hey, it’s like that old Family Guy episode. A well-intentioned soul declares “You can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms,” then Death calls for the check.
There wasn’t a Colonel or Navy Captain laying around somewhere in the Pentagon or EUCOM or some staff that could have at least been a respectable fig leaf to present to the Czechs and Poles? Does Tauscher at least have military liaisons with her?
From the NYT:
“But it made for unfortunate timing, as Thursday was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the start of World War II, a date fraught with sensitivity for Poles who viewed the Bush missile defense system as a political security blanket against Russia. Poland and many other countries in the former Soviet sphere worry that Mr. Obama is less willing than Mr. Bush was to stand up to Russia.”
“Unfortunate”, one of those words folks use around NATO HQ when they mean something considerably stronger.
SecDef Gates has made a statement that the intelligence regarding long range missiles from Iran has changed. Sure… after showing the administration’s love and intent for the intelligence community, the intelligence has changed.
My first thought was for the sailors on the missile cruisers to be deployed to the Black Sea environs. As the father of a sailor who is deployed twice a year, I can’t help but feel for them and their families.
Why would we give away the land-based option? Certainly it would be better and easier than a waterbourne missile defense system. Why not have a “layered” defense, utilizing elements of both? I’m no expert, I have absolutely no working knowledge of what it takes to deliver either type, but purely from a lay-person’s point of view, a land system just seems better, simpler, more workable.
Why is Obama making this kind of decision? Some of the discussion here is that he doesn’t have the brain power, no clue, an amateur or even less. Why can he and his advisors see the implications long-range results? What if he’s making this decision intentionally? What would that mean?
Well, the intel was either right now and wrong in April, or it was not. If not, the threat still exists. If it was wrong in April, policy makers should cast a chary eye on the new intel now, especially if it so fortuitously comports with their personal preferences – been down that road before.
That being true we should stay with the more conservative, multi-layered approach (which by the way doesn’t give away a capability for free or throw our new democratic allies under the same old imperialist bus).
Unless this is all about getting hoping to get the Russians on side to “help” with Iran. Which, since Iran is a Russian military client, oil providing cartel member helping to keep prices high and geopol thorn us the US side, the Russians have exactly zero interest doing. Especially since we just gave away whatever leverage we might have had for free.
“Hope” is a pretty nifty campaign slogan. It makes for a terrible strategy.
You need to look into the details of the decision. This decision is a “win” for the Navy and a win for the alliance in the long run. Its trading an unproven technology with a high overhead cost and high base “footprint”-not mention a whole lot of political baggage with out allies and other-for a system with a very successful track record, a proven engineering team, and all the flexibility that comes with Naval Forces. Gahlrahn has a pretty good rundown over at his place.
The WSJ is not telling the whole story. Dig a little deeper and don’t just look at it from the stand point of politics as usual.
Skippy always digs a little deeper, but never deep enough. The posts at information dissemination make a fundamental assumption, that this decision was guided primarily by national security considerations, and not by an ideological idea fixe. I think the evidence strongly supports the latter, and that the conclusions reached by Bryan McGrath are naive and incorrect. Obama is the leader of the left wing of the Democrat party. Both that party, and in particular its leftist base, have had an ideological opposition to missile defense going back over 40 years bordering on the irrational. This decision fits in far better with the view that Obama has an ideological opposition to missile defense in general, than to one system in particular. Surrendering the Polish/Czech system without significant concessions from Russia highlights this fact. The closer a system comes to having national defense capabilities, as opposed to tactical or theater, the greater its potential to undue the sick calculus of MAD and the more the left despises it.
The GMD system had a spectacularly successful test just a month ago. Its capabilities are growing by leaps and bounds, and the system is proving itself very capable of discriminating between decoys and warheads. Fundamentally, SM-3 will lack the capability to intercept a missile with sufficient performance to strike Britain or the US from a launch in central Asia, unless we have a huge number of ships available for that sole purpose and dispersed around numerous axes of attack. The ground based system, by contrast, had the range and performance to defend all of Europe AND the east coast of the US from a single site. That makes it a far more effective system, on basis of both cost and performance.
But, hey, as long as it’s “good” for the Navy. On that subject, I’d say there’s about a 50% chance that Obama will scrap SM-3 and other missile defense projects – prior to losing massive political capital over the last 3 months, I would have rated that as a 90% chance.
So, enjoy your big Navy win while it lasts.
Larry:
“The GMD system had a spectacularly successful test just a month ago.”
– *What* GMD test a little over a month ago? The last test of the GMD was FTG-05 back in Dec 08. FTG-06 is coming up and is quite a complex test.
Fundamentally, SM-3 will lack the capability to intercept a missile with sufficient performance to strike Britain or the US from a launch in central Asia,unless we have a huge number of ships available for that sole purpose and dispersed around numerous axes of attack.
- Need to be more familiar with SM-3 Blk1B and Blk 2. Blk1B increases lethality of the KV and improves SM-3 as a player in the early intercept game (what used to be called “boost phase”). Blk2 increases the diameter to 21″ providing more energy for mid-course intercept of IR/ICBM’s. You are right about the demand signal on BMD-configured CG/DDGs, but that’s already on high with ongoing foodfights between the COCOMs. Of course, that doesn’t take into account land-based SM-3 either, which IIRC, would be ready post 2013.
“there’s about a 50% chance that Obama will scrap SM-3 and other missile defense projects
- Here you are missing the fundamental thrust of the whole decision – where’s the threat? The major threat facing the US and our allies lies in the short- and medium range arena, with a few in the IRBM range. The proliferation of missiles in the SR/MRBM realm has been exponential in just the last three years. And it’s not just the number of countries deploying the missiles, it’s the number of missiles expected to be used in volley launches. It is in exactly that environment that the SM-3 (and THAAD, PAC-3, and some other items in various stages of development or design) are not only relevant, but necessary. It is that arena that we havethe widest engagement and cooperation with our friends, allies and partners. It’s not just the Japanaese that have committed to configuring their ships to BMD capability. South Korea, Spain, Denmark – to name but a few, are onboard and working the regional/theater threat.
Look, we’ll have 30 GBI in the ground in California and Alaska. That is adequate (for now) to meet the threat imposed by North Korea. That was the original intent of the congressional legislation and Presidential directive that required the establishment of a limited defensive capability against missiles launched against the US and its territories.
We’re there. Now. Today as I write.
Beginning in 2006 the system has operated, daily, at the aforementioned LDO level and has been ready on each of the DPRK’s TD-2 launches. Having reached that capability and in the face of a restricted funding environment, we have to focus on where the threat lies. And that, as pointed out above, is the regional/theater threat. And, BTW, planning began last fall on increasing our direction in the regional/theater fight, with increased production for SM-3 and THAAD, so this just didn’t happen overnight.
I’d like to comment on the revised intel estimate, I truly would. All I can say is that between collection and analysis, we have learned a significant amount about Iran’s (and other’s) programs. That information lay at the heart of the IC’s revision. Ditto with the DPRK. Do we know everything? No – but what we are finding out is of such a fundamental scientific, technical and engineering nature as to improve predictions on progress in those respective programs.
Let me close with a thought — what was the most recent occurrence of ballistic missile use in Europe? It was SRBM’s – Russia’s SS-21 Iskander SRBM’s used against Georgia. The European GMD would have been useless against such an attack. The revised plan would provide a capability (although the Iskander can be a bit of a b*tch to fight).
w/r, SJS
P.S. Give Skippy break –he’s a lot closer to the problem than you might think.
SJS –
I don’t know why, I cannot respond directly to your comment, so I’m replying to my own.
“What* GMD test a little over a month ago? The last test of the GMD was FTG-05 back in Dec 08. FTG-06 is coming up and is quite a complex test.”
Point yielded, I had confused the volley test of THAAD with GMD. Shame on me.
I also yield the point on the need for thorough, tactical and theater defenses – but we also need multi-theater and national level defenses. The GMD system in Eastern Europe was not going to consume vast resources – it was very affordable and quite complementary to SM-3, THAAD, and other systems.
Regarding SM-3, it’s an excellent system, but as originally intended and developed was a shorter range, lower performing system. Now, variants under development may have potential to perform largely the same role as GMD – but that’s not what Skippy argued. He argued that GMD is unproven and SM-3 is mature, at least by inference, but these later versions are still at a developmental stage less mature than GMD, in my estimation (which is limited to open source, of course).
Right now, we have just SM-3 installed on a couple cruisers and destroyers — the plan is to eventually expand the modernizations of the AEGIS system enabling it to perform in the BMD mode to all the AEGIS ships in the fleet.
These modernizations are pretty expensive, as they also add some pretty powerful capabilities to the SPY-1 itself via new components, etc.
Even with this; the Navy can only handle theater level defense unless they’re in a perfect location to intercept a strategic missile shortly after launch (say, from a cruiser based off the coast of Iran).
The kinematics of the SM-3 missile inherently limit Navy Sea-Based; it’s just too small, it has to be in order to fit into existing VLS cells of the Navy’s fleet.
So the Navy in order to perform Strategic ABM, as opposed to Tactical ABM; must station cruisers close to the areas that are to be guarded. Because you need three ships to maintain one on station at any one time; even a simple barriage line of four ships along a coastline would require 12 ships, which is a not trivial fraction of the Navy’s AEGIS fleet.
By contrast, GBI (and the cancelled KEI) are not limited by this constraint, and can be much, much, much larger; and more energetic; allowing a huge increase in area covered, and longer ranged intercepts, ie. how a single site in Alaska can defend virtually all of CONUS, at least from attacks from the West.
The Navy isn’t going to obtain the same capability as land based ABM unless it invests in a totally new class of cruiser with VLS cells sized to carry GBI/KEI class missiles. And then they’d have to “Marinize” the GBI for duty on cruisers, or develop their own GBI-sized missile.
Yes, you can develop a larger, land based SM-3 derived missile, but that is even more developmentally immature than GMD.
Yes, S/MRBMs are the larger near term threat, but that doesn’t decrease the increasing threat from IR/CBMs, which is steadily growing. Cancelling a planned deployment delays any land based system in Europe by years – and despite the 30 interceptors in the Western US, the eastern half of the US is still unprotected from any threat from the eastern hemisphere. The ICBM threat could develop in less time than it takes the US to field a defense to cover the eastern half of the country, since putting together a national-level BMD system takes time, and lots of it. The USN could perhaps perform this role, if ships are not in drydock, they are not on the other side of the world, and we can afford to have significant portions of the USN committed to home defense in time of crisis. The GMD system in Europe would abrogate this need for a limited, suddenly appearing threat.
GMD, in the end, is a much, much cheaper and more cost effective option, at least as I look at it.
And I feel pretty strongly that this was an ideological move to appease a democrat base that is becoming increasingly disenchanted with Obama. Any talk of other systems being more efficient and providing better defense is just a fig leaf.
Do you mean because Skippy lives in Japan, he’s closer to the problem? Or that he’s involved in developing and fielding missile defense systems (in which case, he should speak for himself)?
Lex:
A hypothetical, if you will.
Suppose pre-April the intel, such as we had, was “right” about Iran’s intent to develop an IRBM capability to threaten Europe and eventually the US. Suppose, now, that analysis of the spectrum of scientific, technical and engineering development, as well as the political world, revealed a policy change that was based on building a sufficiency to (a) deter Israel and (b) deter/dissuade the US and GCC by deploying sufficient numbers of MRBMs and SRBMs, in a manner that makes their force secure from a first strike, that Iran might rain destruction on Israel and close the SOH? Suppose that policy decision, based on a variation of limited deterrent theory was judged sufficient, under the economic limitations the regime is operating under, to meet their needs? Would that necessarily require that the pre-April intel be wrong if the post-April intel was right?
Hypothetically speaking, that is…
w/r, SJS
Kris, yup, concur.
VX, I’d have used a different descriptive word but our humble host has, you know, standards here.
(BTW, for those guttersnipe so-called “progressive” leftist trolls out there, this means you too Jimmy Carter: Slandering others for political purposes with the serious charge of racism witout direct evidence demonstrates that those who do so are intellectual pissants because they can’t compete in a battle of ideas. I find BHO despicable for his ideas, lies, arrogance and narcissism.)
[...] Moonbattery, Fausta’s Blog, , The Foundry, Below The Beltway, Moderate in the Middle, Neptunus Lex, A Blog For All, Dr. Sanity, , Michelle Malkin, SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "U.S Changes [...]
Wow, April to September? That’s a pretty quick expiration date, even for Obama.
“So let me be clear” = Obamaspeak for “here comes a whopper.”
You read Barnett of the “Pentagon’s New Map”, right?
Hit him up for a logical set of reasoning as to why this actually increases both US and global security—really, really, really short version: it brings part of BRIC into the ‘functioning core’ faster, leading to de-escelation of the global scene– and the guy’s no muttonhead.
NOt sure if I agree with him, but it may not be simply Obama’s a traitorous scallawag and Chamberlin impersonator.
Skippy-sama, SM-3ER is as battlefield tested as the ground based is. THe sat hit was totemo tweaked and essentially a paintbynumbers experiment—orbital track known with HIGH certainty with a large rewrite of software. I’m actually a proponent of sea based ABMD, but that’s a pretty weak argument: that GBABMD is a nothing, unproven system while SM/AEGIS is such a winner(yup, such a perfect system it shot down an airliner and it’s other test was NOT battlefield conditions). I’d rather see Navy get BMD, since they can usually get closer to launch site and thereby improve chance for shoot down, but that’s a thin reed, Skippy-sama. (ANd, yes, I know the difference between -san and -sama. Let me show some respect, neh?)
I’ve read PNB, and listened to Barnett a few times as he became more well known outside of military circles.
Some good stuff in his books and ideas, though a fair amount of psychobabble and assumptions. He also became a bit too pleased with himself for my taste. OTOH, I also think the same of Kissinger.
I guess we all sense an oncoming tragedy as this bunch rush to meet fate. Step by step we plod to a foreordained doom.
Were the joint chiefs and Secdef really unaminous? I’ve come to the conclusion that Gates is a pusillanimous political hack with no real commitment to national security (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32418), but I’m surprised, nay, shocked, that the Joint Chiefs went along with this. I wonder what they were threatened with to get this compliance?
And here I thought Rummy was the worst Secdef since McNamara. Little did I realize…….
What SJS said. I’d also point out that inside the GMD program-they made some decisions that virtually made the scrapping of the European component a forgone conclusion. That’s all I want to say here-but when you have seen the problems they have had to struggle with in the last year and a half, well it puts this whole thing in a different perspective. They have been expecting this for a few months now.
SM-3 and SM-2 Block IV are 19 for 23 in flight tests so far. That’s a pretty good record. Aegis BMD is a great story for the Navy to tell.
I have limited contacts in the field of missile defense who at times share some information that is certainly not classified, but not available in the open press. Their reactions to this decision do not mirror yours. However, if you are involved in this field and have knowledge that the GMD deployment in Europe was going to be problematic for whatever reason, then that could invalidate alot of my reasoning. Heretofore, I was not aware that you were involved in that field.
I agree that the naval missile defense systems have been very successful against certain types of threats, but many of my comments in my reply to SJS above still stand. I would be interested to know which concerns I have vis a vis the applicability of SM-3 or similar naval systems to theater-wide or national missile defense may be incorrect.
Larry,
Lets just say I’ve seen all the machinations up close and personal for a while now.
It really comes down to how much you are worried about the ICBM threat versus the IRBM threat. The former threatens the US-the latter threatens everyone else. This is a conscious decision to enable Europe and the US to defend against the latter. Its also a decision that by defending Europe against the latter we also defend ourselves.
I was in Japan till last year. I wish I could have stayed-but poverty does not become me very well. Accordingly I’m working in the field while I figure out a way to get back to Asia.
Larry,
The concerns that I think are worth looking at are these:
1) Capacity. We are ramping up in the number of ships but things like this raise the demand signal for the ships and the DDG-51’s and CG’s are not getting any younger. Nonetheless, this soldifies a requirement for more DDG-51’s and they are still in production. Keep them in production and we all win.
2) Yes Aegis Ashore ( that’s the new name) is going to take some serious development-but the advantage is that you are starting from an already proven design, and from a cost standpoint- the computer code is already written. That, from what I have seen can be the big driver in the cost of a weapon system.
3) Sensors. I would make the case that there could have been a half a loaf solution by perhaps building the radar but not the GBI’s- a half a loaf solution. But again it comes down to bang for your buck. You can buy more of other radars and more importantly more interceptors for the cost of the one radar and its supporting infrastructure. Now you have to ask yourself which radar performs better. The answer is “it depends”.
4) Logistics. There is still a logistics trail associated with which ever route you choose. The question is can we-and more importantly the allies deliver on that? Answer at this point is “TBD”.
Larry/
You should have listened to the people that knew Gates “back when.” Nothing but a back-stabbing scheming yes-man adept at bureaucratic infighting par excellence, but nothing else…..according to MY peeps…
And it looks like everyones’ worst fears have been borne out…
Here is what DOD Buzz has to say about it.
Just dollars and cents to them.
But there appears to be Anger in Europe.
The infamous IAEA says Iran can build a bomb right now.
Somebody in a few years (if we are still around) will have great material for a book.
Papa Ray
West Texas
THis is (some of) the more recent stuff I’m talking about.
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2009/09/israels_regional_monopoly_on_w.html
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2009/09/if_you_want_the_full-throated.html
Basically, building a shield against Iran is dumb because it simply escalates the problem. Let them be el jeffe of the Arabian Sea and Penninsula. It’ll force them to mature.(His argument, not mine)
THe Russia deal is elsewhere in his blog archives. It reduces to, as I stated afore, pissing off Russia for jollies isn’t smart policy. Let them have their ’sphere of influence’. It’ll erode over time RUS is incorporated and then encapsulated in globalism. ABMD in East EUR is a major block to that, ergo dumb.
Not sure i agree, but it is a far cry from, ‘Let’s betray America and all our allies, it’ll be fun!”
ry/
I can buy all of that except that as PappaRay points out, the Iranians with their finger on the button are religious fanatics. They might not allow “time” to
erode the rough edges and the scenario as sketched play out. THAT’s MY worry even though I see the logic of the argument.
Yeah, and we should give pyscopaths guns so they can feel the responsibility of having a potentially deadly weapon in their hands. Surely they will all turn around and become productive, peaceful accountants and beauticians.
I concede Thomas Barnett may be right but look at the downsides.
If he’s wrong we hand regional hegemony over the vast majority of the world’s oil supplies and uncontested nuclear power projection ability to Iran (on the ASSUMPTION that they will be responsible with it.)
If those of us who want a missile shield are wrong we have a mini cold war with Iran that they have practically no chance of winning. Certainly not preferable, but less worse than the above alternative.
I’ve read The Pentagon’s New Map and highly recommend it. Barnett (although way too full of himself) really does have a lot of good observations and points to make. But I think he greatly overstates the peaceful power of globalization to bring states, particularly many autocracies, into the fold of his “functioning core.” His functioning core hypothesis is practically a uni-polar theory IMHO with a single dimension upon which a country’s integration is measured. Rather I give the tip of my hat to Robert Kagan’s Return of History and End of Dreams. Autocracies (although many don’t agree with each other) are aligning against the US and the core states it leads. Although not a single coherent threat like the USSR was, a single issue (anti-US dominated global system) franken-alliance between Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc. with Europe, India and South America on the sidelines can be a Liliputian style threat to us. Like the Cold War brought Eastern Europe (temporarily?) a good run at joining the “core” I don’t think autocracies opposed to us like Russia and Iran will be eroded simply by natural market and social forces. Some forceful containment and cold war style bogging them down seems like a safer play to me, but by no means a fun one. This will likely involve a lot of national treasure and a good number of nasty proxy wars (which we should prevent and avoid at all cost but such diametric opposition almost inevitably leads to). But sometimes life doesn’t give you a good option.
ProwlerAMDO/
Life may not always give us good options, but that’s not what the Obamassiah is feeding the kool-aide drinkers. And there’s the rub, (to borrow a Shakespearian phrase from another thread) will we survive Obama in time to undo and/or limit the inevitable damage? And, as Europe is showing us in its’ already well underway PC servile acquiescence to militant Islam, modern western societies have shown little willingness to gird either their psychological or their financial loins for the long struggle ahead. I am not optimistic.
VX
Agree completely. While the health care townhalls and recent expose of ACORN have been relatively encouraging signs I wonder if it’s too late, and fear what more the far left can do with three more years plus in power, even though I’m thinking more and more that Obama’s a guaranteed one termer short of a miraculous economic turnaround.
This reminds me of a lot of people I knew in college, who would earnestly say “All change is good” and not realize that it was a Leninism. Beneath that is an assumption that we are at the worst possible outcome. The irony is that I think we’re completely the opposite, and the American classically liberal/free market/limited government/democracy for all its faults is about as good as we humans can do when it comes to the organized use of force for governance. Of course, Lenin didn’t believe all change is good, but he wanted people to believe the underlying assumption to help usher in feelings of betrayal, injustice and resentment so he could get a foothold from which to implement *his* change, which ending up being very, very good for him. For the rest of Russia? Well, there’s always history, but I truly wonder how many people even get it anymore about the horrors of statism and collectivism, let alone its sheep in wolf clothing tactics.
Err . . . wolf in sheep’s clothing that is . . . dee, dee-dee
Lets just be sure we understand the the Obama administration is no friend of Israel.
And that the governing body of Iran are religious fanatics.
Between Jules & Lex, methinks we’ve got a new measure of political speech – How many “Orwells” is it worth?
I know that this is just civilian ignorance, but could one of you warrior pundits explain to me why it is smart for our government to go into diplomatic negotiations having given up all their good bargaining chips in advance? The present administration is making a habit of this. It’s like facing up to the schoolyard bully and casting aside any rocks, brass knuckles or other self-protective devices you have on you, then smiling winningly and saying, “hi friends, let’s talk about this.”
Marianne, who is too stupid to understand this …
Marianne
I don’t truly understand it either, but at the risk of being a$$-whupped by someone who knows better it seems to me that the operative theory of us not militarily standing up to countries like Iran and Russia is that over time globalizing forces like markets, information technology (i.e. the internet) and social change will make them peaceably change. That their economies and societies will become interdependent with ours first and their politics will have to follow suit, whereas if we oppose them openly their socieities will resent this and not integrate. It shares a lot (I think foolishly) with the idea of the inevitable triumph of liberal democracy as the ultimate stage of any society’s development. While everyone who supports this theory, err, in theory, claims that this does not mean that other outcomes are impossoible and that liberal democracies still must defend and promote themselves, it seems to me that in practice/real world situations they never actually propose any manner in which liberal democracies actually should defend and always conceptualize why doing nothing will eventually lead to success.
Marianne/
To add to Prowler’s explanation, what those who advocate in the manner he describes often overlook is that for many, ideology and/or theology or religion can override material improvements held out by economic integration. These people often march to a different drummer. This was LBJs mistake, who looked upon Uncle Ho as just another politician who could be bribed with the offer of a TVA-like program for the Mekong Delta. As he found out to his (and ours) sorrow, Uncle Ho was motivated by other things than material betterment for his people–at least if it didn’t emerge via the Communist inspired construct of which he was the head–which I am so wary of China. It seems to me they have embraced Capitalism not because they have admitted to themselves it is a better way to order society, but as a stop-gap measure much in the way Lenin was forced to adopt Capitalist measures under the NEP (New Economic Plan) when crop failures abounded because of the collectivization of the farms.i.e., simply as a way to insure that Communism will ultimately triumph using capitalist induced cash-flow to do so.
Seen in this light, they are using the fruits of capitalism as the rope with which to hang us. And to those who say that once the people have seen gay capitalist Paree they can never be convinced to go back to the collectivist farm, I say just look at they way Al Gores’ educated, middle-class, well-off financially greenie acolytes are all too willing to chuck it all and go back to bicycles and buses as the primary mode of transport and live like ants in urban inner city (well, not TOO “inner”) hi-rises–or at least advocate that WE do. And just listen to the many otherwise sensible middle-class people nod their heads in agreement not wanting to be seen as “unprogressive” in the same way they didn’t want to seem ‘racist” by failing to vote for Obama. We are already forcing farmers off the land and into poverty by diverting water to inconsequential minnows in Tulare County, CA–one of the fruit & vegt-baskets of the nation/world–rather than irrigate their farms–with the resultant rise in the price of food and its’ increasing scarcity, signaling a backward march of societal development and rollback of economic gains such that we will all soon be living in a world of scarcer and higher-priced food, thereby diverting money from other societal needs–all in the worship of greenie ecological totalitarianism. So I am not so sure that the newly rich Chinese middle-class cannot be convinced under the guise of nationalism to throw it all away if it means the triumph of their race. Wars have been started for far less reasons…
Marianne,
Let us presuppose that you are deep down dark and cunning and what you really want, without ever even hinting at it, is a global war, WWIII. You start by alienating your allies and sucking up to your nominal enemies. Shall we say, been there done that?
Me, I would set the current date at 1 Jan 1939. I don’t think our marxist friends really comprehend what that means for them. Pretty typical of that lot.
This is what my generation calls an “epic fail.”
I’m calling him Barack Chamberlain now.
[...] speedily to disarm. In Poland’s case specifically, we are being told one thing while the reality is the opposite—America’s ballistic missile defence posture has supposedly been improved by not deploying [...]
Two words.
“He lies.”
Stupidity or malice? Both? It does not matter as the results are the same.
For the information of the Tom Barnett fans in the crowd, don’t save me a seat in the cheering section.
The guy is awesome bright, an academic, and a Wunderkind at Powerpoint mit big grand strategic thoughts.
Also kind of scornful of knuckle walking waterfront rats, fleet sailors and mud marines.
Got a big head too, beyond the volume required to stow all those brains.
Perfectly equipped to lose the bubble big time and get everybody in deep doodoo.
Get him somebody real humble to sit at his feet and whisper “It’s an illusion, you can and will screw up too…”. Might help. A tutor in Chicago Rules might be a good idea too.
Grampa/
I’ve got a friend back/up in Louisville whose favorite phrase for intellectuals espousing neat-sounding solutions not yet tried-out or implemented in the real world, with minimal provisions for ‘Plan B” if things go south (which of course in the real world the odds of THAT happening are, shall we” say, formidable if history is any judge.) is : “Well, another good idea that won’t work.” Guys like Tom Barnett are a dime a dozen; that’s why books like “The Best and The Brightest” get written.
Obama is not just in lock-step with the far left, he leads the parade. These people don’t want the US to be militarily superior. See, that’s dangerous because we can’t be trusted. They actually want the Russians to have parity because they’re the only potential check keeping our bad imperialistic selves from being too adventurous.
Larry:
Honest mistake to make – sometimes feel I need a scorecard to keep track of the tests myself, and I brief it daily…
Aegis BMD Program of record at close of FY09 will have 19 DDG/CG’s configured with more on the way.
You aren’t going to get a special cruiser to haul around a marinized GBI/KEI – developmental costs way too expensive, not to mention you just won’t be able to carry the numbers needed.
Am well acquainted with the GBI’s capabilities and shortfalls as well as that of the rest of the BMDS as I work with it on a daily (hourly) basis. Ditto for BMD planning. Current system will have gone about as far as we can take it under curent configuration in the near future. More work to be done w/EKV and securing the BMDS (and for the record, I would prefer an east coast GBI field too – but it isn’t going to happen in the next 5-10 years). GBIs for Poland were different than what’s in Alaska and CA – they were to have been two stage which required an extensive (expensive) fielding plan. Money that is better spent on THAAD, SM-3 (all flavors), PAC-3, etc.
Problem w/KEI, like it is with ABL, is the need to be proximate to the threat origin and be able to launch on a moment’s notice. Tough nut for certain near peer nations and for others who are in the process of fielding larger mobile and buried force structures that take away our I&W.
All of this, of course, is predicated on our maintaining a credible nuclear and conventional deterrent — and it is those venues that I have my major league concerns about the direction and intent of this Administration, especially as we work towards a new set of arms agreements with Russia.
Which, of course, yesterday’s announcement was part of the prelude to…
– hit the send button too soon…
- SJS
P.S. Plea for giving a break to Skippy lacked the
Plus for better or worse, KEI is dead. The KEI office is folding up shop this month and its workers are out on the streets of Huntsville handing out resumes.
I think the real issue is not the technical merits of GBI vs SM3, but the perceived sellout of Eastern Europe. From their perspective, the Unites States has proven itself a feckless, cowardly nation.
And remember what Osama Bin Laden said about the ’strong horse”? He had a point. The reputation for strength defeats foes without bloodshed – and as Sun Tsu pointed out, this is the apogee of warfighting prowess.
SJS/Larry/youse udder guys: Thanks for the great discussion.
It’s good to learn a bit of what’s going on, technologically, and to know that some part of DoD is still working on the various aspects of BMD. Being out of the game for many years now, folks like you here are about the only credible source left to someone like me. So, thanks again…
Philosophically, it seems to me that we’re dealing with an administration bent on concession and appeasement on the international playground. It also seems that, on domestic issues, I hear an Obama who is continually angry and resentful toward a large percentage of the population, and I can’t help but think that the anger and resentment are spread throughout his view of our place in the world; 5% of population using 25% of world’s resources, etc. He seems intent on growing, or allowing to be grown through other means (i.e. Russia), those ‘tiny’ nations mentioned previously; taking the U.S. down to the same level of broke here and abroad.
Some declare that Obama loves this country. Frankly, I don’t know what the hell he loves…or what he would love to see happen here in the U.S. IMO, what he’s doing doesn’t speak to the naivete or foolishness of Chamberlain, but, again, I don’t know what it speaks to. I just know that my gut gets queasy thinking about it, and a part of me wants to go survivalist and find a cave somewhere deep in the Cascades.
Eh, I see it as people willing to try other modes. Public Diplomacy isn’t a *bad* thing, when it keeps ‘knuckledraggers’ from getting killed while getting the same results, not is it? Question is when is it and when isn’t it.
For some, it would seem, the default is that it never works and so you always gotta go ‘hard’. Which doesn’t always work either. Look at Westmoreland at MACV, employing a hard strategy based on Clauswitzian attrition. Didn’t buy what we wanted. Clinton(spit, oh, god, can’t believe I’m saying anything nice about Slick Hill Billy) gave them rights to send fish and shrimp to the US and got a lot more than the 50k who got hurt over in SE Asia did.
It’s about accepting that there can be more than one tool in the tool chest. Not everything is stupidity or capitulation vs. ‘Strength Through Superior Firepower’.
Do I agree with it? No. I’d rather see Russia opposed. I think that regimes that bad if not shoved all the way into the grave tend to rise and be just as bad again.
There’s no way of stopping Iran short of invading. Delay? Yes, but halting? There is no ef in way without an invasion force. So, the question becomes, you and what army is going to pull that off? That’s the reality. If you want the nucweap program halted you need to invade as soft power attempts like sanctions have failed over 20 years to stop them from proceeding down this line. So, best option available is to ‘put English of the ball’. Steer it best you can. MAD worked against the crazies in Moscow, and we thought them insane too way back when, and there’s a better than good chance it’ll work now—reason for SSBN in the forth coming budgets too. What forces them to mature is the realization that they now are viable to eat the same ordinance they want to threaten people with.
But, back to eating cheese and reading books, academician style. Got no use for Obama or this change of policy, but that doesn’t mean it’s bat$hi7 crazy or the actions of an idiotic/evil man out to sell people down the river. That’s all I’m saying. (SJS, I wasn’t trying to bust Skippy-sama in the chops, I was trying to be very respectful. As John the Armorer says, ‘Ry’s got boney elbows.’ Really, I was trying to disagree as nicely as I knew how, though it’s not as easy to do having been up since 0300 Eastern.)
There’s no way of stopping Iran short of invading
Iran is as big as all of Europe. Can’t really see that as a viable option with our current force structure. How is the United States supposed to pull that off given the fact that there will be no international support for it-even from our “allies” in the Middle East. ( That term should always be used loosely when discussing Arab countries).
Remember the good old days when we didn’t have to invade a place to throw out a bad government and we could just have the CIA engineer a coup to do the job? Maybe some clever dick at CIA is working on a new Iranian coup to bring a Pahlavi back to power in Iran……It worked the last time we tried it.
Except that Gates is now in the Cabinet, and knows the crazies and their every move over at Langley. Oh yeah, and he tells the boss just about everything.