Beware of Growling Bears

On September 11th, 2001, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a talk on a missile defense shield at Johns Hopkins University. Her speech would not have mentioned al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. One might argue that the Bush administration's obsession during that period with long-range missiles diverted its attention from warnings by Phoenix FBI agents, Richard Clarke and others about the real threat of al Qaeda from within. Seven years later, this administration is still fixated on a defense shield. Now it appears that misguided priorities are about to cost the United States once more -- this time by needlessly alienating the Russians.

Just last week, the Czech Republic signed a deal with Secretary Rice, agreeing to host the Pentagon's missile defense shield. The agreement has understandably infuriated the Kremlin. This U.S. policy is a sharp stick in the side of the Russian bear. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reacted angrily in a speech yesterday in Moscow. He argued that Russia cannot work cooperatively with the American government against threats from rogue states while Bush/Cheney continues acting preemptively. "The common (security) heritage cannot survive," he said, "if one of the sides selectively destroys isolated elements of the strategic construction."

Bush/Cheney would argue that we need a missile defense system to protect us from a potential missile threat from Iran. There are also plans to continue the missile defense shield in Poland over the strong objections of the Russians. On the surface, this appears to be another in a long list of miscalculations by our "bull in a china shop" Bush/Cheney administration. If a serious Iranian missile threat does develop, wouldn't we want the Russians on our side? That's the point Medvedev articulated yesterday. He also charged the U.S. with "aggravating the situation" and promised to "respond appropriately."

Once again, Bush/Cheney has developed a nonsensical policy. Russia is a prosperous, nuclear-armed, resource-rich behemoth. And after years of hard work at thawing Cold War tensions with that country, the proposed placement of a missile shield behind the former Iron Curtain is a backward step. Which is a greater threat: a new cold war with Russia or Iranian missiles being fired over the North Pole at America? Theoretically, in a new cold war, Iran and Russia might become allies. Then, we would have real threat.

Ironically, Condoleezza Rice's expertise is in Russian relations. But she miscalculated at the beginning of the Bush/Cheney administration just as she appears to be miscalculating on this issue here at the end. At least they're consistent.

Comments

[BaltimoreSteve]

Thak you senator for bringing this issue some attention. Doesn't congress have a say in this?

[KCFreedom]

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The sides have switched.

What if Russia decided to put a "defensive missile shield" in Mexico to protect the U.S. from missiles from Venezuela? How would we respond?

[joebiz]

Well, a Russian missle system in Mexico not a great thought.

However, one historical event tested the "loyalty" and "intelligence" of the Mexican government came during World War I. The Zimmermann Telegram was a secret note from the Germans to the Mexican government where Germany would help Mexico with military assistance to reclaim the territories of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. These were the territories that were lost during the Mexican War. Mexico would have an alliance with Germany and allow them access to the southwest border to attack the United States and access to submarine lanes.

Mexico analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Germany would not offer a substantial amount of military aid; no matter how generous the aid, the US was too poweful and had a great navy that would not allow German aid to reach Mexico; and Mexico would not be able to "pacify" the English speaking populations in the occupied territories.

The lesson was that a strong American military "pre-empted" and deterred Mexico from acting in its best interest. Pre-empting the Russians and Iran makes sense.

[majorian]

No, it really doesn't make sense. Russia is not our enemy. There is little chance they will be our enemy, unless we continue to needlessly antagonize them. We already have enough of a deterrent against Iran to keep them from ever attacking us or our allies, in spite of their inflammatory rhetoric. Turning Russia into an adversary when we have an opportunity to make them our ally in our war against radical Islam not only doesn't make sense; it's the dictionary definition of lunacy.

[joebiz]

Russia and Iran typically do not see eye to eye on most issues. In recent history, Iranian/Russian realtions have become turbulent because of Iranian exported Islamic terrorism. Russians are moving more towards the West and Iran is being deliberatley isolated by and from the West. Consequently, Iran has been moving towards both Russia and China, both members of the UN Security Council. Iran is not part of the Council. The issue is that Iran and Russia are wary and defensive of an increasingly larger American presence in Central Asia; and the increasingly larger role by client stateTurkey and its increase role in the region as well.

Americans realpolitik is smartly crafting a balance of power in the region through strength and deterence of Iran and Russia. At this point, Iran does not have the capability fo launch missiles over the North Pole. As for another Cold War with Russia, well let's contain them.

[majorian]

I have a better idea - let's try avoiding a new Cold War with Russia altogether, so that we don't have to spend untold billions of dollars down the black hole of an arms race, or waste tens of thousands of American lives in proxy wars against them.

To me, that sounds like a much better strategy.

[Gma11]

Agreed, majorian.

[joebiz]

I'm all for world peace where arms are turned into plowshares. But, I doubt Russia, Iran, and China are sitting around waiting for our next move. They are agressive. They are constantly on the offensive, they are rational state actors, and seek more powerful positions in relation to their neighbors. Additionally, they also have a deadly, military industrial complex. Shouldn't they be pre-empted? Don't we want a superior negotiating position when the stakes are so high?

The sad state of politics and world affairs is that our perpetual wars (cold, hot, versus terrorists, economic) are punctuated by only by a few years of peace. von Clausewitz was understood it best when he stated: War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent ("war is the continuation of politics through other means").

[DavidJames]

I have a question. Why should we worry about a missile defense system?

It is a defensive missile system. It cannot attack anyone regardless of how many buttons are pushed.

One M16 is more life threatening than the entire missile defense system. So, other than the money, why should we worry about a missile defense system? Why should anyone worry about a missile defense system?

[arvay]

The Russians have said that they believe that the defensive system is prelude to and will be used to protect an offensive missile system aimed at Russia.

It's destabilizing and useless against a non-credible, non-nuclear Iranian attack on Europe. Their business customers are there. They'd invite a crushing and possibly nuclear response.

More seriously, the Russians are already boosting their nuclear forces to overwhelm our defensive system. This will be an idiotic arms race, once they do that, some glittery-eyed Pentagon contractor will urge us to bolster our system to make it "invulnera­ble."

[creationwaits]

That doesn't make sense to me. Our missle defense systems are targeted toward rogue states - we don't have the capability of stopping the Russian arsenal, and probably never will. They don't need to boost their nuclear forces. MAD is the only detterent we can offer, and we both have enough weapons for that.

Do you think the Russians really believe we're setting up on offensive system against them? I can't see us attacking Russia unless conditions somehow deteriorated so far and so fast that a little offensive missle system across their border is almost irrelevant - every weapon in Western Europe will be driving or flying east instead. (Putin does seem to long for the glorious Soviet days.)

I don't want to bother Russia, and I don't know that these missiles are worth it. But I also can't figure out why it bothers them so much.

[DasBoot]

The problem with missile defense is that it does not work. Why change your strategy, and possibly risk war, when the defense system you are relying on does not work?

[CaseyBabes]

Systems get developed. Or maybe we should rely on President Obama making this world "nuclear weapons free." Uh huh.

[majorian]

Amen, Senator. This Administration's policy towards Russia has been a textbook case of counterproductive policy.

Russia sees NATO expanding into Ukraine and Georgia. It sees the missile interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland. It sees our "cowboy diplomacy" style of interventionism against authoritarian regimes that we don't like, and it sees us propping up authoritarian regimes that we DO like.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that they've pulled out of the INF Treaty and are now scouting Kaliningrad for medium-range missile sites to aim at Europe, in an attempt to deter what they perceive as NATO-based aggression.

It's time we took a sane policy towards the Russians for a change. We need to drop this scolding schoolmarm attitude and start treating them as they deserve to be treated: as our partners in the war on radical Islam. We need to engage in treaties like START again, as we did under Bush '41 and Clinton. We need to ratify the damn Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We need to stop scolding the apparent curtailing of human rights that Russia saw under Putin, and instead start vocally encouraging folks like Dima Medvedev when he says that he intends to build up Russia's democratic institutions and foster a rule of law in the country.

Above all, we need to stop treating them like children that we can take for granted, and start treating them as our partners in a post-Cold War world order.

[Dave01]

Thank you Senator. I really wish that you would have left the dark side sooner. You would still be in the Senate. Your departure from the Republican Party came too late. Had you caucused with the Democrats you would have been reelected with ease.

[PJay1]

What a treat - two nights in a row!

Another great and insightful piece, Senator Chafee.

No doubt, this missile defense thing is driven by greed, world relations be dam..d!!
Probably another profit driven 'idea' borne out of the PNAC.

If Sec Rumsfeld can call N Korea a terrorist state and part of the 'axis of evil' only two years after he was director of a company who sold nuclear reactors to -----yup, North Korea!! (a hefty $200 million contract), then nothing about this bunch would surprise me. Nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea

Thank you, Senator Chafee, for focusing on the serious issues and for your very informed, wise and reasoned words.

Lord knows we won't hear a peep about this from the MSM.
They're too busy talking about how the Republicans can best attack Sen Obama,
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807150006?f=h_top

or how McCain is still the maverick - NOT!
or how Sen Obama is 'elite' or Jesse Jackson, or Rev Wright, or bittergate, or flip flop, or any other brainless and useless media created controversy.

Okay, enough ranting...­got a little carried away there

Thank you, Senator Chafee. Please keep'em coming.

[Krikkit]

"Times were good and no one was poor -- at least no one that mattered." quote from Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[DasBoot]

What makes the "missile shield" even more dangerous is that, well, it doesn't work. The Pentagon had to concede just recently that it will take years of additional testing before the system to be installed no matter what can be anything near reliable, if at all.

So-called missile defense has been the illusive dream of American exceptionalist empire mongers for over two decades. But the fact that it provides fat defense contracts proves that it "works" just fine. What an utterly bankrupt gang of loonies.

[impatient]

You know, when I first heard about this latest edition of star wars technology, I thought, "Hmmm, GE's stock must be in the toilet." It just seems to me that whenever Bush's Military industrial complex pals start hurting for an infusion of cash, we see a surge, or we see a new defense system, or whatever they've got a backlog on.

It's so hard for me to come to grips with the idea that the american political system has people like Chafee AND Cheney/Bush in it. How is it possible?

Not sure, but I sure am grateful.

[Krikkit]

Yeah, the real Bush/Cheney legacy is all about corporatism.

[nogimmicks]

Excellent points from the great Senator. I never stopped to deeply respect the bravery of the ONLY Republican in the Senate to have voted against authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

As far as the Bush 'shield' policies are concerned, - the Senate and the House are so dominated by special interests of different kind, interested to make money on confrontation, that the voices of reason that (for a change) consider the interests of the United States and the world are simply ignored or dismissed.

[PJay1]

I like the way you worded that: "...make money on confrontat­ion...". It's a very nice way of saying 'war profiteering'.

Ditto on your comment overall.

Senator Chafee has indeed earned deep respect for having the courage of his convictions, eg, his principled "Nay" vote on invading Iraq.