The concept of missile defense has gradually achieved respectability and attention from the American public since first conceptualized by the Reagan administration however the Obama administration seems to be sending mixed messages about their commitment to it which ignore the realities of current and future threats. Unless the United States totally gives up on Israeli survival, suddenly recognizes Islamic Radicalism as a benefit to mankind, and finds Kim Jong Il, a friendly fellow, two things are clear. In the future we are likely to face these asymmetric warfare threats more alone than ever and there will be an increasing risk that rogue nations or factions will consider attacking the United States.
Conventional defense strategy envisioned that two countries would oppose each with force of arms and the most powerful and largest army would win. The story that began following the end of World War II has been the development of asymmetrical warfare. This basically means one side has a conventional force against another side that uses non-conventional means to destroy their opponents will to fight. The Vietnam War for the United States and Afghanistan for the Russians showed that durable insurgencies against foreign powers if given enough time could eventually achieve their objective.
Over the past 20 years the use of terrorism has arisen as a natural refinement of this durable insurgency but not requiring the long wait for success. The idea of terrorism is to make the conventionally more powerful opponent likely to suffer a terrible tragedy which will cause of loss of political faith in the the opponent's government leaders so that they seek terms favorable to the insurgents.
President Barack Obama's recent trip to the G-20 failed to gain any significant support from NATO members for continuing the fight in Afghanistan and for some time support for Israel's survival has also been dwindling in NATO. The absolutely clear reason is that most of Europe is fearful that they will not be able to stop terrorist acts including the potential use of weapons of mass destruction. Europe is now banking on the idea that "if you leave them alone maybe they will leave you alone". This is the same idea that let Nazi Germany rebuild while France and England sat passively by in the 1930s. How can Europe forget the infamous phrase "Peace at any price" proudly claimed by cowardly British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
The Democratic view of this threat for some time has wrongly been an either or proposition instead of one of preparing for all contingencies. This can be summed up in an OP-ED written in the Boston Globe almost a year ago by Democratic Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs and National Security and Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relation, called "Misguided Missile Defense".
At the time Congress was holding hearings on missile defense which ultimately centered on two focus points by the Democrats who were now the majority in Congress. First they concluded that $120 billion spent over 25 years was wasted and that the system "may never be operationally effective". Secondly they pointed out that since smuggled weapons seemed like a more likely scenario it was obvious that no rogue nation would want to development missile technology because there were too many hurdles.
Now it is a year later. A nuclear armed nation, Pakistan, has the technology necessary with a few modifications to hit the United States and is in real danger of falling under Islamic radicalism rule at any time. North Korea is actively pursuing both intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear warhead development in an environment were at least within the near future the United Nations will not take any significant steps to stop. North Korea is clearly hoping to sell missile technology to Iran which itself is continuing to improve in their capacity to make weapons grade nuclear material with Russian approval and Chinese neglect.
The United States is not facing an either or scenario but instead our national survival absolutely depends upon our preparation for both exigent situations. In a survey of the American public done in July of 2008, 6 out of 10 Americans believed that the threat of a terrorist nation or group launching a missile of mass destruction against the United States was real. Overwhelmingly (87%) of Americans said that the country should have a missile defense system to protect against weapons of mass destruction.
On April 6th, 2009 barely a day after North Korea launched their most ambitious attempt at a long range ICBM , Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates gave what many are calling contradictory simultaneous statements about missile defense. While saying that "missile defense looks to be an embedded core element of the defense of the United States, and will be part of the underlying fabric of American defense capabilities. This Administration has clearly ratified the idea that ballistic missiles are a real threat to the United States, its allies and the armed forces" later he said "The programmatic decision making will be heavily debated, with the hold on 33 long-range interceptors in Alaska being the most contentious, as a $1.4 billion cut to MDA was announced and what programs will work in the future and the research and developments efforts needed for a robust, layered, missile defense system."
In another possible contradiction to missile defense priority although the administration is recommended cutting the overall budget of missile defense the decision for Naval funding is now emphasizing making new fast moving destroyers that can carry out missile defense to protect a perceived increased vulnerability of aircraft carriers to missile attack.
Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, released a statement that commended the administration for recognizing the importance of missile defense but then said "One would hope, after the events that happened this week, that every possible part of missile defense be fully funded and restored but in an era of limited resources, outstanding national debt, and other important needs in other fields that will be a challenging task to accomplish."
There have been significant advances in anti-missile programs since the unpredictable results of the Patriot missiles against Iraqi SCUDs in the Gulf War. The program has been marred by sometimes legitimate and sometimes political claims of fraud or exaggeration of technological achievement not supported by independent observers. There is no dispute that to develop a reliable program there can be no short-cuts in time or resources.
Like any other government program this one must be held to the strictest accountability because not only taxpayer dollars are at risk but also American lives. However, there is now a high probability that sometime in the future we will face a threat of a missile and it will only take one to test America. We cannot wait to try to develop a system until the moment before the enemy is ready to launch but instead need to invest in the effort now.
Dr. Tony Magana was raised in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M;University, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. He has served in the United States Army Reserve. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
