By Michael Auslin
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Obama administration has been mugged by reality
(again) — last week it announced that it would reverse its 2011 decision to
close Missile Field 1 in Alaska, and would instead complete the project with 44
ballistic-missile interceptors, as originally planned by the Bush
administration. Newly minted defense secretary Chuck Hagel explained that
growing threats from North Korea and Iran mandate the reopening of the
missile-defense site and the deployment of the full amount of interceptors.
That should be good news, and in one sense, it is. But
let’s look at the downsides. First, it reveals the administration’s original
missile-defense plans as the hasty mistakes they were. After all, in 2011, no
one doubted North Korea was getting closer to a reliable long-range-missile
capability it recently demonstrated, and it had already conducted two nuclear
tests. As for Iran’s threat, the charade of negotiations has been going on for
years, punctuated only by revelations about how many more nuclear centrifuges
the country is spinning. Worse, intelligence agencies have long known of the
North Korean–Iranian tie, whereby Pyongyang is trying to sell missile
technology to Tehran. To put it charitably, the Obama administration’s risk
assessment was seriously wanting. Further, the threats forcing last week’s
about-face certainly lay to rest any remaining pretensions that Barack Obama
could somehow solve proliferation problems that were too tough for George Bush.
Second, the announcement reminds of how wasteful rushed
decisions can be, an important lesson for today’s age of austerity. Just
reopening the missile field will cost $200 million and take two years, and
deploying the full 44 interceptors will take until 2017. At a time when
billions of defense dollars are being cut, training and maintenance for all
services is being reduced, exchanges and educational programs are being
cancelled, another $200 million has to be found. It’s still the right thing to
do, but it’s more expensive because of the Obama administration’s ill-advised
decision to close the field in the first place.
Third, the administration needs to think about other ways
to protect our allies while we also protect ourselves. Increasing missile
defense for the U.S. obviously sends a signal that Washington takes North
Korean threats seriously, and that we are also worried about Iran. That will
deeply concern those of our allies who are even more in the crosshairs than we
are. Secretary Hagel did also announce that the U.S. would add another
radar-tracking system in Japan (again, part of an original Bush-administration
policy). But Japan needs more assistance, such as the presence of more U.S.
Aegis missile-defense systems, in order to feel secure against North Korea’s
threat. Meanwhile, as the U.S. moves to protect itself from Iran, Europe will
be feeling the heat from Iran and Russia, which is modernizing its nuclear
forces and threatening to move missiles closer to Poland. In part, that’s due
to U.S. plans to put defense sites in Poland and Romania. As more states are
threatened by missile-capable adversaries, they will expect a more coherent
U.S. response, and American credibility is on the line.
Finally, close analysis suggests the timing could be
quite worrisome. This is a sudden about-face, and the timelines are pretty
clear, with full missile-defense capability in Alaska by 2017. Is that the
timeframe by which the Obama administration expects North Korea to have
nuclear-missile capability, i.e., a nuclear warhead on top of a reliable ICBM?
If not, why rush now, given the president’s repeated desire to trim
missile-defense expenditures? (They’ve also cut research programs such as the
airborne laser and kinetic energy interceptor.) Clearly, some new intelligence
estimates must have rattled the administration enough to put $200 million back
in play and dramatically reverse a decision for which they received much
criticism.
All this may announce a new, more sober approach by the
Obama administration to growing threats. Maybe they will also come to question
their steadfast commitment to negotiations and decide to bury their failed
policy of North Korean denuclearization. Diplomatic gabfests can’t replace
serious national defense. Now, it’s time to “grow up,” as President Obama
intoned in his first inaugural address, and do the serious business of
preparing the future defense of our country and its allies.
No comments:
Post a Comment