Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Sept. 5, 2001 / 16 Elul, 5761

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Strategy of a thousand cuts -- IT is probably, as the Communists are wont to say, "no accident, Comrade" that every day brings some news of yet another reason why President Bush is wrong to try to defend America against ballistic missile attack. After all, this initiative -- like President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative which preceded it -- is absolutely anathema to the Left in this country and abroad.

Consequently, as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin prepares this week to try to eviscerate the President's request for missile defense funding and Rep. John Spratt plans a similar effort on the floor of the House of Representatives for later this month, anti-anti-missile invective is spewing forth from every conceivable outlet. Consider the following sampler of what might be called a "strategy of a thousand cuts":

Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other left-wing organizations have launched a lawsuit aimed at compelling the Bush Administration to "reassess...the potential environmental damage" to be caused by its planned test facility in Alaska and provide...for public comment." An Anchorage activist with Greenpeace confided to the New York Times the real purpose: "[Our] hope is that delay will lead to cancellation, that's what we always hope for in these suits."

The problem is that the Clinton Pentagon actually did produce a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement for an Alaskan missile defense system -- albeit one far larger (intended to house up to 100 interceptors) than the modest test facility President Bush proposes to build (involving only 5 interceptor silos). It is hard to imagine how the latter could create more "environmental damage" than the former, which was deemed acceptable even to the green weenies of the Clinton Administration.

Dr. Theodore Postol -- the MIT PhD who has become the scientific poster-child for the stop-missile-defense crowd -- has recently added a new item to his litany of debatable technical critiques of the Clinton and Bush programs: scare-mongering transparently intended to inflame allied opposition. He asserts that even if a missile interceptor succeeded in effecting a boost-phase "kill" on an incoming missile (that is during the early stage of its trajectory when it is moving relatively slowly, easily identified and vulnerable to destruction), its warhead might continue on and land in friendly territory with devastating effect.

Of course, it is not possible to say with precision exactly what the target of a missile in boost-phase might be; perhaps allied cities were intended to be ground zero anyway? It is also true that intercepting a missile during that stage could cause any debris to land on the launching country since, by and large, for these weapons tend to be deployed deep in the interior of such states. Even Dr. Richard Garwin -- whose decades-long record of techno-naysaying on defense programs makes Postol look like a piker -- is quoted in the August 29 edition of the New Scientist magazine as pooh-poohing his colleague's warnings: "If it hit land, the warhead would most likely hit a relatively uninhabited area and kill far fewer people than intended, says veteran physicist Richard Garwin....That fact should deter nations such as North Korea or Iraq from launching a missile at the US, he says, if they were ever tempted to do so."

The latest "cut" was precipitated by a New York Times report on Sunday to the effect that the Bush Administration will tell China in the course of consultations about the President's missile defense plans that the U.S. has "no objections to [the PRC's] plans to build up its small fleet of nuclear missiles." This unattributed statement was subsequently disavowed on the record by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who acknowledged the reality that the Chinese "modernization is underway" -- whether the United States build a missile defense or not -- but made clear that "We're not going to acquiesce in it."

The original Times article, nonetheless, created an opportunity for a fresh round of hand-wringing and chest-beating by the President's opponents. We should not be encouraging China to build more missiles, increasing the threat to us and triggering an arms race in South Asia, they say. In fact, our deployment of missile defenses should actually discourage such actions.

Nonetheless, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden ventilated that the Administration's "headlong, headstrong, irrational and theological desire to build a missile defense sends the wrong message to the Chinese and to the whole world." One wonders what message the Chinese took from Sen. Biden's his recent visit to Beijing, in which he made clear that he shared their determination to stop Mr. Bush in his tracks?

It is ironic indeed to hear the critics denounce the President's commitment to defend America as "theological." In fact, there is no greater leap of faith, no more unshakeably theological conviction than the belief Messrs. Biden, Levin, Postol and others appear to share -- namely, that the United States will be perfectly safe if only it remains perfectly vulnerable to ballistic missile attack.

Unfortunately, in their adherence to the outdated, not to say morally problematic, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) theology of a by-gone Cold War, the opponents' "thousand cuts" strategy could well precipitate the very outcome they claim to fear most. If enough legislators are rattled or bamboozled by the cacophony of arguments against missile defense, they may vote to cut or otherwise hobble Mr. Bush's missile defense program.

That would have a decidedly pernicious effect on the Russians. As former SDI director and arms control negotiator Amb. Henry Cooper has noted, the Kremlin will have no further incentive to agree jointly to end the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty regime that precludes development, testing and deployment of effective U.S. missile defenses. This would compel the President to proceed, as he has vowed to do, unilaterally.

The moment of truth on missile defense has arrived. Congress should not be distracted from the historic task at hand of defending America by those whose efforts to bleed the Bush anti-missile program to death risk a far bloodier fate for all of us.

JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


08/28/01: Rummy's back
08/21/01: Prepare for 'two wars'
08/14/01: Why does the Bush Administration make a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks and Israel's restrained defensive responses?
08/07/01: A New bipartisanship in security policy?
07/31/01: Don't go there
07/17/01: The 'end of the beginning'
07/10/01: Testing President Bush
07/03/01: Market transparency works
06/27/01: Which Bush will it be on missile defense?
06/19/01: Don't politicize military matters
06/05/01: It's called leadership
06/05/01: With friends like these ...
05/31/01: Which way on missile defense?
05/23/01: Pearl Harbor, all over again
05/15/01: A tale of two Horatios
05/08/01: The real debate about missile defense
04/24/01: Sell aegis ships to Taiwan
04/17/01: The 'hi-tech for China' bill
04/10/01: Deal on China's hostages -- then what?
04/03/01: Defense fire sale redux
03/28/01: The defense we need
03/21/01: Critical mass
03/13/01: The Bush doctrine
03/08/01: Self-Deterred from Defending America
02/27/01: Truth and consequences for Saddam
02/21/01: Defense fire sale
02/13/01: Dubya's Marshall Plan
02/05/01: Doing the right thing on an 'Arab-Arab dispute'
01/30/01: The missile defense decision
01/23/01: The Osprey as Phoenix
01/17/01: Clinton's Parting Shot at Religious Freedom
01/09/01: Wake-up call on space
01/02/01: Secretary Rumsfeld
12/27/00: Redefining our Ukraine policy
12/19/00: Deploy missile defense now
12/12/00: Sabotaging space power
12/05/00: Preempting Bush
11/28/00: What Clinton hath wrought
11/21/00: HE'S BAAAACK
11/14/00: The world won't wait

© 2001, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.