Neocon’s Nook #2 (Pt. 1 of 2): BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years

BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years

26 April 2009

“This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.” – President Ronald Reagan, 23 Mar 1983

Seeing as I view our missile defense efforts of the past decade or so, and our continuing efforts at least through to the end of President Bush’s presidency, as something that can be used as a bond that holds the U.S-European Alliance together, I should probably start by mentioning NATO. While not only America and countries of Europe, this alliance was what kept Europe and the U.S. on the same page throughout the Cold War, even when our different approaches to the world caused major disagreements in defense as well as in other areas. Even when France left the military structure in 1966, it never actually the Alliance itself, and a “secret accord between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Aillert Agreements, laid out in great detail how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.”1 Basically, NATO was the glue that held the West together during these difficult decades.

It is not new to hear in reference to NATO, “the alliance is wrestling with an identity crisis that has lingered since the Cold War ended” as written in the March 28, 2009 issue of The Economist. Such comments have been around since, well, since the end of the Cold War. Although personally I believe it now more than at any other point in time. The current economic “crisis” is being handled mainly by the G20, how to deal with unreliable energy supplier, Russia, is being handled mainly by the EU, Iran’s nuclear aspirations by the EU’s “Big Three” and with North Korea’s irresponsible nuclear behavior we have the six-party talks.2 The one area where NATO has really taken the lead today is in Afghanistan and that is proving extremely difficult to the point America has recently had to agree to pick up the slack yet again and send another 17,000 troops. Not exactly confidence-inspiring about NATO’s future as a forum for strategic dialogue.

I get the strong impression that NATO hasn’t really decided as a whole exactly what its top priority is. No doubt this isn’t an easy answer to get to as all 26 nations have their own national interests and particular reasons for being in NATO in the first place. However, it would most definitely be worth it in my opinion to ask, discuss and answer what is the top priority of NATO.

So now let’s focus on missile defense. The very first thing we must realize is that aside from bringing us closer to allies, which interceptors, radar stations, etc. deployed on their territories would certainly do, it is in our national interest to be able to defend ourselves against long-range ballistic missile strikes. Nearly all Americans believe this yet a large portion mistakenly think we already have such a system in place. We don’t. This fact is very dangerous because it skews opinions when talking about deploying parts of the system today in Poland and the Czech Republic, especially amidst the global economic “crisis.” But the post-Cold War threats realized under the Clinton Administration didn’t magically disappear. If anything, it’s become more dangerous and not due to U.S. policy.

Iran is not more dangerous because we are in Iraq, they are more dangerous because their leaders believe they don’t get the respect they deserve as descendants of the Persian Empire and they believe nuclear weapons are the only way to get that respect. Plus, they’ve seen China and Russia protect them within the U.N. time and time again.

Does anyone believe we pushed China into increased military spending? Many on the Left in America believe we are the cause of all bad and arrogantly believe any action from any other country must be in response to something we’ve done. However, it was noted only three days ago following a maritime parade in the port city of Qingdao commemorating the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) that China has major sea disputes with numerous countries, most notably Vietnam, Japan and the Phillipines.3

We tried a softer line with Russia and supported their entry into various international organizations. There could be some argument they may be more dangerous because they lost respect for our strength but as a person living close to six years in a former Warsaw Pact country, I can say with no shadow of a doubt, it has nothing to do with us talking with Poland and the Czech Republic about the Missile Defense Shield. Russian leaders like Prime Minister Putin long for the influence they had in the Soviet Union and are embarrassed by the 90s. There was no policy, hard or soft, we could have had to prevent them from becoming more belligerent and resurgent when they were capable. They still act like former satellites are theirs by constantly trying to use strong arm tactics and flat out threats to influence their policies rather than treating them as free and independent nations.

A soft line was taken with North Korea and they thumb their nose at the international community over and over again and had a more successful test than ever before only a few short weeks ago. Would harder lines with all the countries I’ve mentioned helped? I believe so but looking back on President Bush’s treatment by the media made that almost impossible as they sucked every ounce of political capital he had, often with little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. And regardless, I am under no delusion that it is our fault. Americans must stop blaming our leaders for all the ills of the world and the actions of others around the world. We have much influence but we do not make their decisions for them. I want to reiterate we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.

I mentioned it earlier but allow me to elaborate. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, missile defense came to light once more during the Clinton Administration not only because rogue states at the time who did in fact have missile programs: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. There was also a serious concern that Russia’s crumbling infrastructure could lead to an accidental launch. Congress mandated R&D on a national missile defense system. President Clinton gave approval and his Vice President, Al Gore, continued to support a missile defense system while campaigning for president. There have been numerous foreign policy experts, James Lindsay of the liberal-leaning think tanks Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations to name but one, who have strongly supported a missile defense system.4 Fast forward to today and while the details on the type and deployment of the system can still be controversial, there is large support on both sides of the aisle for the idea of missile defense. Again, we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.

God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson


Sources

1) Cody, Edward. "After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member." Washington Post, 12 Mar 2009: A08
2) "Have combat experience, will travel." The Economist, 28 Mar-3 Apr 2009
3) "Distant horizons." The Economist, 25 Apr-1 May 2009: 57.
4) Rust, Michael. "Think Tanks Look at Missile Defense." United Press International, 4 Mar 2001