In 2001, intelligence estimates said that Iran was five years away from being able to assemble the components for a nuclear weapons program. The 2003 National Intelligence Estimate doubled that figure to ten years, “early next decade” at the soonest, more probably not until 2015.
In the summer of 2003, national media outlets took heart at the news that the intelligence community was re-assessing the products it had developed asserting the presence of WMD in Iraq – an important, but by no means exclusive rationale for going to war there. There were murmurings here and abroad that, rather than cautiously balanced assessments with footnoted caveats intended to inform policy makers, the intel had been “sexed up” at the direction of politicians – a crucial distinction.
And then in 2007, a new NIE was released that asserted Iran had abandoned its weapons program in 2003. This was heralded in many quarters as the successful reassertion of rational analysis over bureaucratic politicization, and was widely seen as a blow to Evil Mad Emperor President Bu$hCheney’s Insane Rush to Yet Another Unwinnable War. For Oil.
Others wondered whether the intelligence bureaucracy hadn’t substituted its own judgment on policy matters for that of the country’s elected representatives: If it wasn’t right for the intel community to be politicized into a war, neither was it right for the bureaucracy to let their own policy judgments lead us away from one. Because in neither case is that their proper role.
No, the role of the intelligence community is to hoover up as many facts as they can, deduce what those facts point towards in terms of the capability and intent of foreign powers, signify their degree of confidence in those conclusions and factually present the counter-indications. At which point, those constitutionally invested with the authority and responsibility to formulate policy can sensibly do so.
This little history lesson is important only because it has a bearing on our present.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama pledged – among other things – that he would “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems”. In February 2009, the president ordered a sweeping re-evaluation of the Bush administration’s missile defense plans, in part citing Russian concerns over the Polish/Czech missile defense project:
The fact is, with the economic crisis, Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration has not yet reviewed where it is on a whole range of issues, including relationships with allies, the missile defense program, the relationship with the Russians,” (DoD Secretary Robert) Gates said in a round table with reporters while attending a conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “These things are all, in many respects, tied together.”
Not stitched in with those concerns was the imminence and gravity of the Iranian threat. Not, at least, until yesterday when the intelligence community, having once again seen which way the wind was blowing, apparently produced the Correct Answer. An answer that – fortuitously, no doubt – supports candidate Obama’s expressed policy preferences.
And today the AP reveals an IAEA document which contends that Iran has the capability – now – to make nuclear weapons, is working on the means of delivering them, and is “likely to overcome” their technical problems doing so. Much closer to the original 2001 NIE estimate of 2006, much sooner than the 2003 NIE assessment of 2015, and thoroughly rubbishing the 2007 estimate that was so widely greeted to approbation.
Thus, estimates.
I don’t argue that the more imminent Iranian threat is not short and medium range ballistic missiles. I do argue that the long range threat is of much more proximate concern to US national security. Us.
Right here.
The Eastern European missile shield served two principle goals: It protected the US homeland (principally) and Europe (secondarily) from the intimidation of rogue states. It also held out hope to countries long ground under the boot of Soviet tyranny that they could be a part of the liberal, Western security alliance. While the second goal was laudable, the first was vital. Our national ballistic missile defense didn’t have to be an “either/or” proposition, it might easily have been a “both/and.” Ought to have been, in fact. If the technologies required to form a land-based shield are not yet mature, then now is the time to work them out.
Unless, of course, the intelligence has once again been cooked in support of a policy preference, rather to inform it.
I am not one of those who believes that President Obama is set on destroying our country, he merely has a fundamentally different view of what our country’s future ought to be. With that in mind, i firmly believe that the president’s actions are clearly not intended to jeopardize national security. He obviously estimates that we can better secure our homeland by lowering our shield and counting on the good offices of the Kremlin to help us negotiate with Tehran.
For all of our sakes, I hope that his estimate, at least, is right.
I think he’s wrong. One of the things being thrown around is his idea that we can provide missile defense better and cheaper using ocean based platforms. Has anybody seen any increased funding for Aegis ships or SM-3 missiles? Then you have the problem of getting the ships where they need to be. The Black Sea would be a good place for a few but then you have the problems involved in getting them there and resupplying them. What happens if Turkey decides not to play along? I think Obama needs some education in Geography, military capability and logistics before he makes any more “smart moves”.
“Hope” ain’t a good strategy, as I’ve heard said from time to time. Time to change.
I have always been amazed at how quickly traditional organizations re-align their judgement biases when the boss changes.
Flatlander/
You noticed.
The Times of London takes a look at the deal just made, and isn’t impressed:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838377.ece
Interesting analysis, none of which bodes well for our allies or our servicemen.
– Max
Lex, you believe that BHO doesn’t want to “destroy” our country. BHO very clearly wants to change it from it has been since its founding (Capitalist, Republic, and pretty much ran by, for and reasonably accountable to the citizens) to a Socialist/Fascist country with the Federal government telling us what we need/must do, you know, for the good of the country. I kinda think that is destroying our country,. Short of BHO telling our military to lay down their arms and let the Chinese or the Russians take over our country, I’m not sure how much worse he can get.
You believe that BHO “clearly” doesn’t intend to jeopardize National Security? The only evidence I have is what he does, since I cannot (nor do I desire to) read his mind or “see” into his heart. Trusting Russia? Hmm, when has that ever worked out? Poland disagrees with you, as well they should. Good on Poland for refusing to take Clintons phone call BTW.
I believe the next critical world event will be when (IMO not an “if”) Israel attacks the Iranian nuke sites. From that point on, my crystal ball is very cloudy.
With all due respect, I think you are giving BHO way too much credit, and trusting him far more than any objective criteria would justify. I agree with the person in one of the other posts that said comparing BHO to Chamberlain demeans Chamberlain. At least Neville had honor, integrity and demonstrably had Englands best interests in mind.
Yep! Chamberlain knew GB was not close to being ready for war and was trying to buy time. What he “gave away” couldn’t be kept from Germany, and was taken from her at Versailles, which was an unjust peace.
I’m always skeptical of long estimated time frames for a determined country to develop nukes. Consider:
Construction begins at Hanford: March 1943.
Trinity test: July 1945.
Fat Man dropped: August 1945.
So, the first time anyone built a plutonium weapon, it took slightly over two years from beginning construction of the plutonium production facility to having a usable weapon. And that was with 1943 technology, and no Wikipedia.
I understand that Iran’s industrial base is rather deficient, and that the government has tried (unsuccessfully, so far as I’ve heard) to buy such commodities as high-purity graphite from elsewhere… but I just don’t get the confident many-year estimates, nor the focus on uranium enrichment facilities.
Eric Wilner/
Or what about the Hydrogen bomb? THAT was projected by our “best” people to be DECADES away from being successfully tested by the Soviets after we exploded one in 1952. Three years later……
I don’t believe that Obama is set on destroying the US, either. But, from foreign policy and national defense perspectives, he operates from a set of assumptions and world views that have been shown, time and again, to have disastrous consequences for the United States. I cannot emphasize enough the extent to which opposition to national missile defense is, and has been, a virtual dogma of the left. Despite his rhetoric as a candidate, Obama is most assuredly a man of the left, and almost as assuredly shares the basic assumptions that missile defense is a) unworkable, and b) disastrously “destabilizing,” the twin canards of left-wing opposition to missile defense. In recent years, progressive thought has changed to allow that missile defense may have some value against short range ballistic missiles, but the dogma against national missile defense, capable of defending against ICBM class systems, is unchanged. Thus, Obama has an instinctive bias against such high-performance systems, and for those that defend at the battlefield or theater-level.
I also have no doubt that our now thoroughly politicized intelligence agencies have produced intelligence to match the policy preferences of the current Administration. Bureacracies are notably reactive, and slow, and probably haven’t fully appreciated the fact that this democrat Administration and dominance of Congress is likely to be short-lived. So, they are producing intelligence to satisfy what they assume will be their masters for some time to come. In the not too distant future, these estimates may change yet again. I pray that in that future, those estimates will be based on hard intelligence, and not bureaucratic favor-seeking.
I think your post is succinct and very convincing. Well done, Lex.
What will our allies think now? South Korea, Israel, Europe (especially the Czech Repulic and Poland), Great Britain, et. al. … where does this leave them?
Obama’s drastically different world view puts them in at least a different frame of mind with regard to the USA now. Obama’s policies will definitely have world-wide implications. Where are we headed with this approach?
All of the CIA Directors for the past 35 years have signed a letter of protest to Obama with regard to Atty. General Holder’s recently announced re-opening of CIA methods/people who were involved in terrorist interrogations.
I cannot imagine that people who voted for Obama anticipated that there would be this kind of “Change”.
They will think it’s time to man up, or be ready to welcome their new overlords.
In addition, our “word” will be crap form decades to come, as it will demonstrate to those who believed us that support is but a passing fancy at the whim of the electoral college, somewhat (not) facilitated by shut and up and let me listen to my iPod while I text citizenry.
And…top it all off if, when we need a helping hand if they will be willing to put it out.
I’m not a political science, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn, but I think I can see the Brilliant WON is in fact unable to listen to history and, I predict, his legacy will be the very opposite of what he so desires to stroke his ego…Sad…being such a young man as he will be, when his Constitutionally limited time (if we can keep it) is up.
OTOH, maybe that’s why he is pushing (via Dr Emmanuel) a cut off of medical care in stages after reaching 40…so he’ll not have to be alive too long to suffer the slings and arrows sent his was in public and private appearances.
He’s focused so much on the future, he screws up daily…
Correction:
And…top it all off if, when we need a helping hand they shall not be willing to put it out.
We aren’t exactly overburdened with allies at the moment. With the possible exception of 3 or 4, most of our “allies” aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit. “Allies” that fielded million man+ armies a generation ago can only come up with a couple of dozen men and women to support the war on terror.
It’s not about this administration or that administration, it is just the simple economics of socialism that has swept the planet. Nobody wants to see their $ diverted to arms and soldiers when it could be spent on worthy things like socialized deathcare and non-education and 7 week vacations for bureaucrats.
Regarding Obama’s intentions toward the U.S….he surely wants the country to continue as an entity and for its people to continue to survive. But he also utterly wants to change the nature and meaning of the country.
To construct another analogy: Obama is like a new CEO who takes over a company for which he has no respect. He thinks the executives are fools and the employees are lazy, selfish morons. The corporate culture is something for which he has great contempt. The strategy is wrong and the products suck. Since he thinks there is no talent within the company or even the industry, he will bring in his former associates from other places to run things. Although he talks a good game..”empowerment” and all that..his management approach is entirely top-down, and the role of employees & executives is to shut up and do what they’re told.
So he certainly wants the XYZ Corporation to continue to exist–but to exist as something totally different from what it has been.
Truly insightful.
However, in the “reorg” it seems all the functional resources will be given away, chased off, or just outright destroyed figuratively, and maybe literally.
No way yo run a railraod, even if you aren’t in love with it, if you still need a train to get you to where you’re going.
That is where I note his background in skirting the law is all he has to rely on…slogans and not experience in the “real politik” of every day economics and usually having to compromise, when all in the corporation (think contractors) can only be directed to a point, and after that, they can legally walk out at the very moment the new product, with the massive (and expensive) buzz campaign playing, is to be shipped from the loading docks.
I think he believes he is worldly and full of wisdom. Pygmalion Effect…his handlers has whispered sweet nothings of adulation and “YES YOU CAN!” in his ears so long, he thinks he can…do it all and he is supremely capable of judging all things for all people…
Pride goes before…..well, you know the drill.