Obama Administration Hits Back Against Missile Defense Critics
EmailABC News' Kirit Radia reports:
It didn’t take long yesterday for critics to slam the Obama administration’s new missile defense shield plan, which is designed to defend against missile attacks from Iran. The new plan focuses more on a threat from Iran’s short and medium range missiles, which US intelligence says is currently a greater threat from Iran than longer range or intercontinental ballistic missiles that were the focus of a plan struck by then President Bush in 2006. Today the administration hit back. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, at a press conference with his Czech counterpart who was in town on a previously scheduled visit, told reporters that even if the intelligence is wrong the new plan is more flexible and broad than the previous one. “If the intelligence is wrong, and the Iranians develop a capability sooner than the intelligence is saying, this architecture gives us a better chance of being able to cope with it than the program that I signed in December 2006 just because of the new technologies that are available that give us more flexibility, and as the reality is also we are going to continue the R&D on the ground based interceptors as a fall back,” he said. He also said the old system could be easily overrun if Iran were to launch numerous missiles. That system called for 10 interceptors based in Poland with a related radar system based in the Czech Republic. “The ground based interceptors were really designed primarily to deal with perhaps, well no more than 5 targets and we were assuming those would be longer range perhaps intercontinental ballistic missiles. What we have seen with the Iranians is that they are producing and deploying significant numbers of short and medium range missiles, so they could overwhelm even when the 10 interceptors were in place, a salvo like that could overwhelm it,” Gates said. “The original program that I recommended would have had no capability against short and medium range missiles until probably 2018. What the new system provides is some capability beginning in 2011 that will grow steadily each year in terms of its sophistication and its coverage of Europe,” he added. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also fired back at critics. “We've heard criticism of this plan from some quarters, but much of that criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, 'shelving missile defense.' We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush administration planned to do so, and we are deploying a more comprehensive system,” she told an audience at the Brookings Institution this morning. “Make no mistake. If you support missile defense — which I did, as a senator for eight years — than this is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is actually supposed to do: It defends America and our allies,” she added. Clinton offered a list of reasons why she believed this plan was better, saying it was cheaper, more quickly deployed, more flexible, and offered broader coverage. “We will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. We will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program, with more interceptors in more places, and with a better capacity to protect all of our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money, and we will preserve the flexibility to adjust our approach to the threat as the threat evolves,” she said. She again denied that the decision was aimed at appeasing Russia. “This decision was not about Russia. It was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic missile program poses. And because of this position, we believe we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat and to do so with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what we pledge to do, we can actually deliver,” she said.
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
This is certainly an easier fight when Scowcroft up and joins your camp.
Posted by: Matt | September 18, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
So if this isn’t about Russia, why is Vladamir Putin so excited about it? Why is he now talking about what a brave decision by Obama this is? Why is he pushing for backing from the US and allies to “hold a seat” in the World Trade Organization? Why would this administration ask Russia for help with Iran and not expect Russia to ask for something in return? Do they not understand Russia’s track record? How long will it take people to realize the only time Obama shows “transparency” is when he’s selling out…Iran, Russia and China can see through him clearly. There are no guts inside.
Posted by: Shoe | September 18, 2009, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
Shoe,
Because America is ahead in technology and doesnt need Russia, Putin is a toothless dog, he can bark but cannot bite, but a harmless strategy of ‘divide and rule’; makes Putin feel important, he is the lifeline to Iran, and he can discard Iran to get the attention of US. If you are smart, you dont need to be a bully.
Posted by: Bill | September 18, 2009, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
Things like this would not be happening if there wasn’t an irrational desire on the part of the Obama administration to pretend to be “overturning” or “reversing” or “resetting” everything the Bush administration did.
By presenting their plan as something completely different than the Bush plan they opened themselves up to such criticisms.
Now that the heat is on they’ve decided to admit that they aren’t opposed to what President Bush did, they just have a different plan for implementing it.
Of course saying that at the outset would not have endeared them to the red meat nutroots that drive leftist politics these days.
Posted by: Reality Hammer | September 18, 2009, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
focus on Iran’s potential short and medium long range missiles. And ignore Russian, Chinese,- or potentially even N.Korean or Iranian longer range missiles or even ICBMs?! Most importantly keep the “cut and run” availability by not committing to longterm batteries and bases, and actual people, on the ground in Poland and Czech Rep. Like the Pole and other papers are saying. They know without US troops on the ground Obama will be able to “cut and run” at any threat. Small batteries and Naval vessels can move quickly. Like Georgia. Like how we “helped” during the uprisings in Hungary, Prague, Poland, Tiannamen, etc.
I say the Obama Doctrine needs to use one of those infamous “reset buttons” they gave to the Russians a few months ago!
Posted by: Ed | September 18, 2009, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
Anybody with apolitical IQ above 10 knows that this system was a political AND military defense system It ratified our pledge to protect Eastern Europe from foreign threats,not just from the middle east. The timing is appaling: get Mr. Obama a textbook on modern European history.
Posted by: Nephron | September 18, 2009, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm
Seems this new system gets a lot of support as being more efficient, more workable and more beneficial than the previous plan.
Oh but of course it was put in place by President Obama so all of that must be false, a weak approach and so on.
Some people on this blog should try to judge things by their merits. Condemning anything just because it is Obama is getting very old and transparent.
Posted by: julieterra | September 18, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
Who are the critics? This post doesn’t say.
There really aren’t any serious critics of this plan. Everyone knows the “missile defense” was just a sop to the rubes and welfare for the contractors.
Posted by: Flash Override | September 18, 2009, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm
Posted by: Flash Override |
Who are the rubes? Your post doesn’t say.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | September 18, 2009, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm
Julinita, you say, “Seems this new system gets a lot of support as being more efficient, more workable and more beneficial than the previous plan.” Gee, the “support” is coming from Obama administration officials. Of COURSE they are going to claim it is better than the old plan. I will wait to see support from folks with the expertise to judge, but I am not happy at the moment because people I respect like John McCain have come out against the change.
Before you respond that McCain is a republican and a hawk so of course he is against it, remember that McCain has been equally quick to praise the president when he agrees with Obama on something. He is not a knee-jerk opponent.
Even if it turns out this is a good plan, and I’m waiting to be convinced, I still am flabbergasted at the timing of this announcement. Very poorly planned– the anniversary of the invasion of Poland AND Rosh Hashana. I think the announcement could have either been moved up a day or so or pushed back. Very very odd timing, in my opinion.
If this is a great idea, why not convince Poland and the Czeck Republic of that in private before springing the big announcement on them, and why not brief a wider range of Congresspeople who should have been in the loop?
Posted by: moderate | September 18, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
“Condemning anything just because it is Obama is getting very old and transparent.”
Relax. At least the Russians are ecstatic. In fact, most of our enemies are. Eh, it’s CHANGE.
Posted by: Mary | September 18, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
Sorry, I should have written that this was announced on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland and on the EVE OF Rosh Hashanah (and the start of the High Holy Days). Yesterday was not Rosh Hashanah– I really do know better.
Posted by: moderate | September 18, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
“Very poorly planned– the anniversary of the invasion of Poland AND Rosh Hashana”
So on the anniversary of the Russian invasion we tell Poland that the missile system we were planning on building to protect them from Iran [NOT RUSSIA] is no good anymore, but to continue our commitment to their security we’re going to change it to something we think is a lot better, and that is bad timing? [and on a side note it makes the Russians happy too]
Posted by: Skip | September 18, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
“I am not happy at the moment because people I respect like John McCain have come out against the change.”
____________________________________-
John McCain was never National Security Adviser under George H. Bush like General Scowcroft was and John McCain is not flawlessly correct on all things.
Posted by: julieterra | September 18, 2009, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm
John McCain is not flawlessly correct on all things.
Posted by: julieterra |
Obviously because sometimes he disagrees with Obama, who is as close to flawlessly correct as it gets.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | September 18, 2009, 11:12 pm 11:12 pm
posted by moderate: Gee, the “support” is coming from Obama administration officials. Of COURSE they are going to claim it is better than the old plan. I will wait to see support from folks with the expertise to judge–
***
I understand the need to hear from the people you trust and believe have the expertise to judge. For me those are folks like Gates, Gen. Jones, Clinton, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, BUT, of course, I get your point about admin officials. Fairplay, however, admin officials are NOT the sole support outside of Putin, Medvedev and Russia for the move:
–Republican Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser, endorsed Obama’s new policy. He said, “I strongly approve of President Obama’s decision regarding missile defense deployments in Europe. I believe it advances U.S. national security interests, supports our allies, and better meets the threats we face.”
– NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the decision to shelve plans for a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland “is a positive step” and “We should explore the potential for linking the U.S., NATO and Russian missile-defense systems at an appropriate time.”
– Per the AFP, Poland and the Czech Republic officially “put a brave face on Obama’s decision, saying it did not signal any deterioration in ties with Washington.”
–German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a “hopeful signal” of improved relations, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his support.
As for John McCain and others in the GOP and its echo chamber, I know you said you didn’t want to hear from julieterra that he’s a Republican, a hawk and yada, yada but there are real reasons folks like me don’t trust their judgment, particularly McCain’s. The record clearly supports Obama’s contention during the campaing that McCain “was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11.” In fact, I remember seeing him on Letterman talking about how we were doing fine in Afghanistan and the next step was Iraq. Then, in January 2002, while touring an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: “Next up: Baghdad!” In the run up to the Iraq War, he was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, cosponsoring the resolution authorizing the use of force. He also expressed complete faith in the way it would be executed by Rumsfeld. Indeed, he seemed to think Iraq would be a cakewalk, predicting that the war “will be brief.” As late as May 12, 2004, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, McCain said on Fox News in regard to Rumsfeld, “I believe he’s done a fine job.He’s an honorable man.”
He made some good calls following a visit to Iraq in 2004, but yikes, he made some really bad ones prior to that– and then, for crying out loud, he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. That scares the bejeezus out of a lot of people when it comes to his judgment. Count me as one who much prefers the judgment of the President, Robert Gates, Clinton, Gen. James Jones, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NATO, the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation and Scowcraft.
As an aside, there’s an interesting article about all of this by Fred Kaplan at Slate.
Posted by: Alyson | September 18, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
John McCain is not flawlessly correct on all things.
Posted by: julieterra |
***
Nobody is, but understatement that on McCain :>)
Posted by: Alyson | September 18, 2009, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
Like how we “helped” during the uprisings in Hungary, Prague, Poland, Tiannamen, etc. Posted by: Ed
why don’t you take a moment and explain how America would have helped in those situations?
and, I’ll just assume that your in favor of all out nuke war between US Russia and China….
Posted by: commie rhino | September 19, 2009, 12:50 am 12:50 am
Actually I like Europeans, but I believe that if they took some of that energy they use in bashing the United States and put it into defending themselves against our common enemies, they would be much better off.
“This is the result of twenty years of Marxism.”-Marshal Petain on the fall of France, 1940.
Posted by: RR GOP | September 19, 2009, 7:35 am 7:35 am
Praise from our adversaries and criticism from our allies. Another Obama success.
Posted by: Rasputin3.14 | September 19, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Memo to Kirit and Jake,
Does the media realize how much of the heated and fractious nature of politics in America is actually spread and fed by their own combative headlines? Do you care, or is it that you are actually doing it on purpose, ABC? For example, how about if the headline for this blog post was captioned “Obama administration RESPONDS to Missile defense critics”, instead of “Obama administration HITS BACK against Missile defense critics”? Changing just a few words doesn’t alter the facts but it certainly alters the tone.
Since when did it become appropriate for the media to frame every single policy issue in America as a “fight” or a “battle” rather than as an enriching and edifying debate over differing views and ideas?
Posted by: Mohican | September 19, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
If this is a great idea, why not convince Poland and the Czeck Republic of that in private before springing the big announcement on them, and why not brief a wider range of Congresspeople who should have been in the loop?
======
Yeah, I can’t speak to the merits of the plan itself, but rollout was obviously mishandled.
To have post-midnight phone calls to two of our supportive allies, no call to Israel, and no call to Georgia– it’s just a huge bungle.
Posted by: MayBee | September 19, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
Skip, you disagree with me that the timing of the announcement was poorly planned, writing, ”
So on the anniversary of the Russian invasion we tell Poland that the missile system we were planning on building to protect them from Iran [NOT RUSSIA] is no good anymore, but to continue our commitment to their security we’re going to change it to something we think is a lot better, and that is bad timing? [and on a side note it makes the Russians happy too]”
While yes, we have always maintained that the protection we offer is from missiles from Iran, the loudest and most serious objections to it have come from Russia. Russia has put a great deal of pressure on the US, NATO, Poland, Czek Republic, et al not to deploy the defense system Bush pledged. So it is not just a “side note” that the Russians are pleased by the change– the Russians will conclude that they were able to change our position, at the expense of the Poles and Czecks. So the timing has great resonance in Europe and in Russia, whether intended or not (and I do not argue that we INTENDED to make a statement with the timing).
As to whether the “new system” we have suddenly started to push is superior to the existing one remains to be seen. What I know is that this is a diplomatic move as much as a military one, and that it impacts our relationship with Russia as much as any relationship. So the symbolism related to that relationship should have been taken into account when making the announcement.
Posted by: moderate | September 19, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
Alyson, Thanks for the heads up on the Slate article. I will check it out.
Sorry, we’ll have to agree to disagree about McCain’s bona fides as a foreign policy expert. I still think he’s the real deal. As I said, however, I am waiting to see the words of others I respect as well. I did note with interest the approval of Brent Scowcroft. I suspect Sam Nunn, of whom I am a big fan, will also be supportive of the change, and if he is, that carries major weight with me.
I’ll look for comments by Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, John Warner, and a few others. THat will help shape my thinking on this issue, because I suspect they have more expertise on this matter than I do. *G*
Posted by: moderate | September 19, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
“As to whether the “new system” we have suddenly started to push is superior to the existing one remains to be seen.”
_________________________________
Perhaps it’s just the poor use of english, but there is no ‘existing’ missile system – if you’re referring to the Bush system.
That system was still in development and not in place – and was years away from practical deployment.
The ‘new system’ is expected to deploy much sooner.
Posted by: julieterra | September 19, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
there is a great op-ed in today’s (Sunday’s) NYT by Robert Gates on this topic. May clarify some things for some follks.
Posted by: Alyson | September 20, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
This was about a quid pro quo deal for GE and Jeff Immelt with Russia, not protecting Poland & the Czech’s.
That is the reason for the abrubt about face that no one knew was coming.
Posted by: Bertha Hut | September 20, 2009, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
Let’s not forget the massive support Obama has gotten from MSNBC & NBC and deliberate slant of the news from them in his favor. GE owns both of them and is due to get billions under “green initiatives” and has already recieved hundreds of millions in bailout & “stimulus” money. GE & Immelt were also some of Obama’s biggest campaign donors.
Posted by: Bertha Hut | September 20, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
Obama sold out Honduras by supporting the Socialist dictator Zelaya, whom their legislature and courts threw out of the country for violating the Honduran constitution.
Obama sold out Poland and the Czech Republic by cancelling their misslie shield and acknowledging Russia dominance over them.
Obama sold out Israel by putting preconditions on them (stop building settlements) but NO preconditions on the Palestinians for peace talks.
Obama sold sold out the people of Iran by blessing Ahmadinejad’s stolen election and blessing Iran’s “right to nuclear *power.*”
Obama sold out Colombia by continuing to deny them a free trade agreement, or any support against Chavez’s agression.
Obama now hints that he will sell out the people of Afghanistan by denying the Army’s request for more troops–despite campaigning on Bush’s “under-resourcing” of the Afghan war.
Senator Obama tried to sell out the people of Iran by opposing Petraeus and his Surge strategy.
Posted by: Appeasement Czar | September 21, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am