Czech Mate

Bush's agreement with the Czech government is too little, too late to save his plan for anti-missile bases in Europe. The Czech people and the American Congress have already blocked his rush to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist.

Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg signed a agreement in Prague on Tuesday allowing the US to deploy a tracking radar in the country, part of an anti-missile system that would include interceptors based in Poland or another country. It is a huge political gamble for the government headed by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and it could lead to its downfall. The Czech public is overwhelming opposed, with 68 percent expressing their disapproval of the base in the latest's polls. Thousands of demonstrators filled Prague streets Tuesday night to protest the plan.

With just 100 seats in a 200-seat assembly and several in the majority party saying they will not vote for the unpopular plan, the government says it won't even try for approval until after new elections in 2010. That means no funding from the U.S. Congress. The House has fenced off construction funds until all the government parliaments approve deployment and it gets a report from the Pentagon showing that the proposed interceptors have passed realistic tests. Similar legislation is pending in the Senate. Neither successful tests nor ratified agreements are likely for several years.

As Rep. Ellen Tauscher, (D-CA) said in supporting the restrictions she put into the defense authorization act, "We don't believe the American people should be digging holes in Poland for a system that will eventually cost over $4 billion when we don't have ratified and signed agreements with their government." Tauscher chairs the strategic subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and is deeply skeptical of the European bases. "I am concerned that we are proposing to deploy a new system," she says, "that as of today has not demonstrated the capability to defend Europe -- let alone the United States -- against an enemy attack under realistic operational conditions."

Poland, meanwhile, has balked at the plan and Bush officials are now shopping in Lithuania for a partner. But time may have run out on the administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to put the best face on the paper pact, "It is hard for me to believe that that's not a capability an American president is going to want to have." Really? The capability is just as meaningless as the agreement she signed. Neither the threat nor the technology justify a rush to deploy.

The administration's main motivation is political: Bush is trying to box in the next president, to create facts on the ground that the next president would find difficult to reverse. He had hoped to build bases in Europe--as he already has done in Alaska and California--that would institutionalize his enormously expensive and technically unproven weapons system before he leaves office.

The main justification for the bases is the Iranian missile program. Iran now has missiles whose 300- to 600- mile range could reach targets in southern Europe and Israel, but the proposed U.S. system is not aimed at this threat. The bases would counter missiles that exists only in the rhetoric of Iranian and American officials. Iran boasts of building a long-range missile and the Americans cite the claims to justify moving out now on anti-missile bases. Both are exaggerating.

It is high unlikely that Iran will be able to build an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead that could threaten America in the next ten years. Only five countries have been able to build weapons in this range, and there is little reason to believe Iran would be the sixth. Its test program has been mediocre at best. Tests of the 600-mile range Shahab-3 missile (based on the North Korean Nodong) have been mixed, with at least two blowing up in flight. Iranian officials claimed the last test, February 4 of this year, was a success, but video footage clearly showed debris flying from the missile shortly into the flight, suggesting that Iran still faces serious technical hurdles. The vehicle seems to have only reached an altitude of 70 to 100 miles, far short of the capability required.

Over the past ten years there have been repeated claims of the imminent appearance of longer-range Iranian missiles. These continue today in the media and from some foreign officials. It is possible Iran is making progress, but there is no publicly available evidence to support these claims. Congressional expert Steven Hildreth explained the history of crying wolf on new missile programs in recent testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Since the early 1960s, there have been any number of intelligence assessments and studies that predicted there would be more than five nations that could have accomplished this capability at various times in the past 40-50 years...Why has this number not increases as many had predicted? I believe that no small part of the reason lies with the serious technical challenges that countries face in building an operational ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead.

Still, the administration is doing its best to convince everyone that there is an imminent missile threat from Iran. It has to. The Iranian program is a key justification for the rush to deploy. Of the $60 billion that the Bush plans to spend on anti-missile weapons over the next 5 years, $10 billion is solely to counter the hypothetical Iranian missiles.

Our interceptors do not appear to work any better than the Iranian missiles. The administrations designs and grades its own tests and then usually classifies the results, so it is difficult to judge their real progress. They celebrate "successes" after firing interceptors at missiles traveling along precisely calculated and controlled trajectories. None have been tested against realistic targets deploying the kind of decoys and jammers our intelligence agencies say any nation would likely use to defeat a U.S. anti-missile system.

The rush to deploy has also strained NATO relations--by trying to negotiate bilateral deals that skirt the alliance decision-making process--and our increasingly shaky relationship with Russia. Russian leaders contend that the missile bases on its borders are a threat to their national security. Newly-elected Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed his hopes for continued dialogue on the issue, while making it clear that a base in Lithuania is entirely unacceptable. No nation should have a veto of U.S. national security. But these bases are not worth the derailment of vital national security items, like the renegotiation of arms reduction treaties. Russia, after all, has 14,000 nuclear warheads. At last count, Iran had zero.

The next president would be wise to pass on this "capability." He will have enough problems on his desk without being handcuffed by hyped threats, phony weapons and angry allies pressured into shady deals.

Joe Cirincione is the president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

Comments

[KenFL]

It doesn't matter whether the technology works or not.

There simply isn't any need for US weapon systems in Europe. Period.

If the opposition to these weapon systems is based on their performance, the argument will fall apart as the technology improves.

The "it doesn't work" argument also detracts from the main argument - the only argument, IMO - which is - why in the world are we even considering this?

The answer is that the US has woefully failed in coming to grips with its' place in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Clinton administration was busy with other things, and then 9/11 happened, and we've still not begun a serious national discussion of what the US should be doing in Europe and the rest of the world.

Into this vacuum come the defense contractors, whose business has also suffered from our national lack of focus - they are left trying to make whatever sales they can - and hey, if some politicians say there's money to be made in Poland or the Czech Republic, and all it takes is a few back-door meetings and campaign contributions, why should they complain, since there's no national strategic direction anyways. Every man for himself, eh?

We need to demand a national discussion of what US defense policy is and should be, and this needs to be led by the netroots, since the MSM is useless, and the politicians won't respond until there's a certain amount of public

[KenFL]

sorry, I meant to say "until there's a certain amount of public pressure to do something".

[moreupnorth]

I couldn't help but notice and pick up on this statement, "No nation should have a veto of U.S. national security." while I generally agree with this statement shouldn't it be countered with "The U.S. should have no veto of any other soveriegn nation's national security." as well. Why should the US's national security trump another nations?

[NewEnglishman]

Scaring people with phony threats is a time-honored political tradition, especially during election years. I can only hope that words of wisdom from people who know what they are talking about will help militate against this bloated propaganda of fear.

[ofbbg]

For example, John Kennedys' non-existent "Missle Gap." Stop the sanctimonious flapdoodle - both sides use whatever means are available to get the power to screw things up for the future.

[joanndarc]

US has Imperial ambitions in Iran and in the World overall, the same as British Empire used to have. It's all about profit, oil is the comodity of nowdays.

[richardmcnoggin]

If this system doesnt work why is everyone upset???

[joanndarc]

B/c these bases in Eastern Europe can house ICBMs targeting Russia. What if Russia starts building military bases in Canada?

[ofbbg]

Why not - they built them in Cuba!

[MajorKong]

Because it's really, really expensive for one. Also the Russians get a little nervous any time we have a military presence that close to their borders. It's not this particular site that has them worried so much as the US military presence that would go along with it.

"Fixed defenses are monuments to the stupidity of man." - George S. Patton, Jr.

[ofbbg]

Sure - except for the ones that work - say ICBMs!

[DofG]

Until Mankind transcends its "love affair" with warfare, and the deadly toys of war, it will remain mere vying "macrobes" under the pretension of human intellect! Long after the nation states have already carved up the world, like a group of diverse pathogens on a petri dish, they still believe in war as the ultimate mode of human expression. All the great art, music, literature, scientific discoveries, philosophical thought, and wealth are all diminished by this polar dance of unnecessary death for cosmic trinkets, in a transitory existence!

Surely, surely, in the vastness of this unquantifiable universe, there must be something better!

[andygaus]

Above, all this "Star Wars" system simply does not work and probably never will. The question isn't whether you can strike down a single missile. The question is whether you can distinguish a missile from a cloud of accompanying decoys. Decoy missiles are very simple to create: basically a big mylar balloon will work nicely. In the rarefied upper air that the missiles would be shooting through, it isn't possible to distinguish missiles by their weight or the way they move through space. Once the air gets thin, feathers and bricks can move through space much the same way. That's why they never do realistic tests involving a realistic set of decoys. The results would always be negative.

[ofbbg]

Would someone please tell me how a mutual fund manager has the slightest knowledge about the efficacy of an anti ballistic missile system. How about the satellite shoot-downs over the Pacific. Get your heads into the 21st century, people. Who could possibly know what will be developed - and what kind of nitwit would pretend to guess - and what sort of morons would believe him and act on his delusions? Good Grief!

[SouthpawSass]

Hey, I have a Czech mate...

[AlisonChaynz]

Thanks for this post, Joe.

Our approach to Russia after the wall came down has been an utter disgrace. Instead of trying to engage Russia as a friend, we have done our best to make them our enemy. Clinton and Bush have put us on course for a new cold war completely unnecessarily, and with Russia's growing economic power (natural resources) and the coming collapse of the U.S. dollar, we will be the ones who will lose the next round of the cold war.

Missile defense systems in Europe? Heh, we'll be lucky if we can even afford to keep our existing military bases operating on that continent.

[argeec]

The Russians have announced that they will take military action to prevent this system being installed. And I can understand why they say that.
If this system were effective, mutually assured destruction (MAD) would no longer apply. The US could launch a first strike against Russia and then defeat a retaliatory strike. The Russians can never be 100% certain the system won't work, so their only choice is to take it out before it is operational. And after this administration, they know there are some crazy Americans out there.
So "Dr. Strangelove" evolves from satire to prophecy.

[outnow]

The radar deal has been signed but the Czech parliament has not approved the deal. 70% of the people oppose the radar installation. Condi Rice went to the parliament personally to sell the idea that Iran might attack at any moment. I was there in Prague last month. I cannot speak Czech but I had two young men on two different occasions try to run me over with their automobiles while I was in a crosswalk. I look like an American with my camera. While I was on the train, some young men on bicycles flipped off the people on the train. I was beginning to understand the non-verbal language.

Given that I am half-Czech, I was not impressed by the big welcome I received by the Czech people. Thanks, Bush/Cheney/Rice! I have waited most of my life to visit the ancestral homeland and this is what I get! Some Czechs said that they would never visit the United States. A few Germans said the same thing. Since the Bush regime, feelings of extreme anger towards Americans are common.

The local newspapers carried articles opposing the radar installation. The proposed Lisbon Treaty was also attacked as a fascist plot to get the European Community under the thumb of NATO so that they would have to supply troops and money to fund the war of terror.

[darthdarcy]

Professor Steven Cohen has been talking about the same thing Joe...how we have been turning Russia into a serious enemy again and it's all that witch Condi Rice and her arrogance damning the world to a potential huge war...and Bush of course...he's hell bent on starting Armageddon...

[CaseyBabes]

Think ya got the wrong continent.

[CaseyBabes]

"with a system that doesn't work and a threat that doesn't exist"..................... It will and there will. Of course we can always take John Kerry's advice and rely on the United Nations' diplomacy, ya know, the same organization that worked against every USA initiative during the Cold War when there was a threat. There's just something about a coupla nutcase religious tyrant-directed nations with the big one that sorta indicates we should be prepared for today's growing threat.............started before Bush's arrival.

[MajorKong]

So I guess we don't have to attack Iran now, because this will protect us from them?

[CaseyBabes]

While Iran is working on their missiles (with guidance systems provided by the Chinese obtained in the mid 90s from the USA for campaign donations) the USA can work on a missile defense system. (Kinda weak there King, not up to your usual clever cuts.)

[peterg76]

And they said Stalin was paranoid when he turned eastern Europe into a buffer zone.