Indefensible missile defense

Gregg Carlstrom | September 17, 2009 11:30 AM | 0 | recommend (0) |   |      

Mostly off-topic, but that's one of the benefits of a blog: We can write whatever we want!

The big news in Washington today is the Obama administration's decision to kill off the Bush-era Eastern European missile defense system. Predictable criticism has ensued: Obama is "capitulating to Putin," "making us less safe," "throwing our allies under the bus," etc. (John Bolton thinks this was the wrong decision, which means I absolutely support it.)

Here's my gripe: Nobody can define exactly what threat the U.S. was protecting its allies against. Is Russia secretly planning to invade Poland? Is Belarus plotting an empire?

Supporters say the missile shield was a needed defense against "rogue states," which inevitably means Iran. The usual suspects are already warning that Obama's decision will embolden the mullahs.

Again, I ask: embolden them to do... what? The Iranian regime is not planning to nuke Estonia. And even if it wanted to, it couldn't. Iran's missiles currently have a maximum range of about 2,000km -- enough to get them to Romania or the Ukraine, but no further. (It also doesn't have nuclear weapons, but that's another story.)

Given that, what's the point of placing missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic? If the U.S. is really committed to defending against an Iranian threat, wouldn't it make far more sense to put them in, say, Turkey?

This program was championed by Cold Warriors who think Russia is always on the brink of restoring the USSR. I'm glad Obama ended it and brought a dose of realism back to U.S. foreign policy.

For updates throughout the day, follow us on Twitter, Facebook or RSS!

Categories: Obama Administration, Proliferation, War and Terrorism

Tags: Barack Obama, Iranian nuclear program, missile defense

No Comments

Post a Comment

Failure to launch

The Israeli military has been testing a missile defense system off the coast of California, but the first three tests have all failed spectacularly.

Iran tests Shabab-3 missile

Iran's missile tests, while provocative, have nothing to do with upcoming negotiations over that country's nuclear program. They're annually scheduled exercises.

Condemning the House of Jonathan

Today in AQAP: Jihad with a chance of Awlaqi

This week in war crimes

Al-Akhbar: Our weekly brief

Nuclear Negotiations

More nuclear posturing from Ahmadinejad

Evan Hill | February 7, 2010 3:20 PM | 4 | recommend (0)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking Sunday at the Exhibition of Iran Laser Science and Technology.
During a speech on Sunday, Ahmadinejad ordered the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency to figure out how to enrich the country's uranium to a more easily weaponized level. Some doubt that Iran even has the capability to carry out such enrichment, but the country's leaders likely hope that Ahmadinejad's remarks will give them leverage in negotiations with the West.

Helmand Surge, Take 5

Strategic communications, Taliban-style

Gregg Carlstrom | February 4, 2010 9:06 AM | 2 | recommend (0)
ISAF and Afghan soldiers on patrol in Helmand province last year. (Photo: Flickr user combat.camera)
ISAF has spent months hyping Operation Moshtarak as the mother of all battles. But why is the Taliban talking up the Marja offensive? To draw ISAF further into a battle that's likely to be expensive -- and unlikely to lead to any major strategic gains.

Iraqi Elections

Report: De-Ba'athification decision overturned

Gregg Carlstrom | February 3, 2010 8:57 AM | 0 | recommend (0)
Iraqi president Jalal Talabani at a press conference in Baghdad (file).
An Iraqi appeals court has overturned the de-Ba'athification commission decision that banned 766 candidates from Iraq's March 7 parliamentary election. The court's ruling does say that the once-banned candidates will be subject to judicial review -- for Ba'ath links -- if they win the election.

Bloggers

The "MSM"