Go to consortiumblog.com to post comments
Bush End Game
George W. Bush's presidency since 2007
Bush - Second Term
George W. Bush's presidency from 2005-06
George W. Bush's presidency, 2000-04
Who Is Bob Gates?
The secret world of Defense Secretary Gates
Bush Bests Kerry
Gauging Powell's reputation.
Recounting the controversial campaign.
Is the national media a danger to democracy?
Behind President Clinton's impeachment.
Pinochet & Other Characters.
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics.
Contra drug stories uncovered
America's tainted historical record
The 1980 election scandal exposed.
From free trade to the Kosovo crisis.
Bush Escalates Tensions with Russia
Editor’s Note: In an eerie replay of the mainstream consensus behind the 2003 Iraq invasion, Official Washington is marching in lockstep with the neoconservative strategy of encircling Russia with missile systems and hostile neighbors.
Everyone – from bipartisan foreign policy elites to the big U.S. news media – is again acting like the only way to walk is to swagger. But – as with the Iraq conflict – there are two sides to the story, as the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland notes in this guest essay:
The U.S. missile defense program, which contributed to the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations that helped generate the Russian-Georgian conflict, has benefited from that conflict and may cause a further downward spiral in the relationship between these two great powers.
Along with the recognition of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia and repeated rounds of an expanding NATO — a Cold War alliance the Russians perceive as hostile — to Russia’s doorstep, the unilateral U.S. abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to pursue missile defense humiliated a weakened Russia.
But with oil prices high, economic growth robust, and new bold leadership, a much stronger and grumpier Russian bear has emerged from hibernation, as predicted by U.S. doves as early as the mid-1990s.
Now to take advantage of Russian “aggression” against Georgia (even though Georgia started the conflict rolling) and to demonstrate that the seemingly impotent United States has at least one retaliatory option, the Bush administration has provocatively reached an agreement with Poland to install 10 missile defense interceptors on its territory.
This unnecessary deployment will merely dump gasoline on the fire and will probably cause Russia to take more anti-Western actions in response. Russia has already said that by agreeing to house the system, Poland has opened itself to targeting by Russia.
Although U.S. officials insist that the system is meant to counter Iranian, not Russian, nuclear-tipped missiles, the Russians aren’t buying this argument and are also humiliated by such a defense being erected in a former Warsaw Pact ally only 115 miles from their territory.
The administration claims that only 10 interceptors would not threaten a Russian nuclear deterrent force of thousands of warheads.
The Russians fear, however, that the missile defense radar, which will be erected in the Czech Republic, could look into Russia and that the system is only a precursor to a much larger system that could threaten the Russian nuclear deterrent.
The Russians are especially nervous about the survival of their nuclear force in the wake of its post-Cold War deterioration in reliability. Also, the Russians note that there is no current Iranian nuclear threat to Europe and that such a danger via missile is a long way off.
The American taxpayer might wonder why the U.S. government is paying the Europeans to let the U.S. defend them from future Iranian missiles.
The price for Poland’s agreement to deploy U.S. missile defense interceptors includes the provision of Patriot missiles, U.S. modernization of Poland’s armed forces, and a strengthened U.S. commitment to defend Poland. The Czechs got similar goodies for their agreement to house the system’s radar.
Of course, the long-standing Republican obsession with missile defense — the Bush administration’s preoccupation prior to 9/11 and after is only the most recent installment — is more political than strategic.
Missile defenses are very technologically challenging and expensive and can be countered relatively cheaply by building more nuclear-tipped missiles, putting more than one warhead on each missile, or using decoys to fool the system.
Besides, the combination of U.S. detection systems that can pinpoint the origin of a nuclear missile launch and the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the most powerful on earth, can deter any new nuclear-armed powers, such as Iran and North Korea, without the need to build an exorbitantly-priced missile defense system.
Even the current U.S. missile defense system — a vastly scaled-down version of the pie-in-the-sky “Star Wars” system proposed decades ago during the Reagan administration — was deployed in California and Alaska and is now likely to be deployed in Europe before it has been sufficiently proved technologically — a potential nightmare for taxpayers.
That’s where the politics comes in. Republicans, allegedly the party of small government, haven’t minded wasting buckets of money over the years to bring to fruition the vision of their “conservative” hero Ronald Reagan.
The vision thing seems to be especially important after George W. Bush has wrecked the conservative brand name — perhaps for decades.
In sum, instead of trying to integrate Russia into the West after the Cold War, the United States alienated it. U.S. abrogation of the ABM Treaty played a part in bringing about this estrangement.
Now in the wake of U.S.-Russian tensions over Georgia, the unnecessary U.S. deployment of missile defense in Europe risks a downward spiral in U.S.-Russian relations into active hostility.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
to Home Page