UPDATED: The end of Putin’s anti-missile tantrum — and thoughts on Russia’s real dilemmas
The Cold Spell ended quickly. Despite the sensationalist “Cold War” revival rhetoric, the mutual interests bind the US and Russia –and Russia and Europe. The Russian threat to “re-target” missiles and point them at Europe was bluster and threat. That’s right, Mr Putin, threaten to destroy your consumers. Assuming Russia survived its limited war with the US and Europe, its Atlantic-less future would be rather limited: a trans-Ural oil vassal of China might be a better deal than Islamist satrap.
We’ve even had Zbigniew Brzezinski weigh in at Time Magazine with an article titled How to Avoid A New Cold War. Okay, it’s likely he isn’t responsible for titles. The anti-ballistic missiles are Times’ news hook and Brzezinski’s point of departure to rattle on about Iraq and Chechnya, Russian oil power, etc. Russia’s Kosovo conundrum is notably absent from Brzezinski’s rumination. More on Kosovo in a moment.
Brzezinski completely misses the mark on missile defense with this caustic anti-Bush slap:
“The U.S. should avoid careless irritants, like its clumsily surfaced initiative to deploy its missile defenses next door to Russia.”
Hooey. “Clumsily surfaced?” The offers to share anti-missile technology go back to Reagan. The idea of bringing Russia into a strategic defense relationship is also at least two decades old.
Brzezinski does recognize the the source of Russia’s problems:
“Despite the tensions, the uneasy state of the relationship need not augur a renewed cold war. The longer-term trends simply do not favor the more nostalgic dreams of the Kremlin rulers. For all of Russia’s economic recovery, its prospects are uncertain. Russia’s population is dramatically shrinking, even as its Asian neighbors are growing and expanding their military and economic might. The glamour of Moscow and the glitter of St. Petersburg cannot obscure the fact that much of Russia still lacks a basic modern infrastructure.”
That’s the rub, and quite a rub it is – rusty or non-existent infrastructure combined with demographic decline and threats from the east and south.
Which is why President Putin, after caterwauls, rhetorical threats, and standard issue, press-pleasing anti-Bush postures, ended his missile minuet with what the US called “some interesting suggestions.”
And with that Time’s dramatic news hook becomes lukewarm history and Brzezinski’s slap another weak gesture by a remnant of the Carter Administration.
After months of angrily rejecting a White House plan for missile defense in Europe, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia surprised President Bush on Thursday with an offer to build a joint system in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.
The proposed system, designed to guard against a missile attack from Iran, poses serious diplomatic and technical challenges, experts said. But the fact that it was suggested by Mr. Putin, and not immediately rejected by Mr. Bush, indicated a desire on both sides to cool the hostile exchanges that in recent months had driven relations to a low point in the post-cold-war era.
The offer came during a much anticipated private meeting between the presidents at a gathering of leaders of wealthy democracies. Mr. Bush said that Mr. Putin had put forth “some interesting suggestions,” and that the two agreed to form a working group of military and diplomatic experts to examine how they could cooperate on missile defense, an issue that has long divided Russia and the United States.
As I’ve argued many times, the missile defense argument is a charade. Russia needs missile protection – from the east and south. It also needs western allies. (This column appeared in May 2001. I wrote it right after the Bush Administration let the ABM Treaty lapse. That’s the one to check out. This one dates from 2006. I don’t have a link to a long essay I wrote in 1999 (or was it 1998?) for the San Antonio Express News.)
The Washington Post noted:
Bush afterward (after Putin’s statement) described Putin’s offer as “interesting” — the United States has been pressing Russia to take part in such a system since the 1990s. Both presidents said Russian and U.S. military and diplomatic officials would meet to discuss the idea further.
So does that go down as a victory for US foresight and diplomacy? Don’t hold your breath — these days it seems more than a few editors at the WaPo seems to take their cues from the DailyKos but one can always hope.
The WaPo added:
After their meeting at the summit, being held at the German seaside resort of Heiligendamm, Putin said Russia would no longer consider re-targeting its missiles.
“On the contrary,” he said, “this will create necessary grounds for common work.” Putin said that by using the radar station in Azerbaijan, the planned system would be able to cover all of Europe “without exception.”
“We have an understanding, as well as common threats,” Putin said as he stood with Bush. “But we have differences. The difference is ways and means in which we can overcome these threats.”
The Washington Times provided more specifics:
Throughout the public spat, Mr. Bush repeatedly offered Russia access to the sites, saying that the missile-defense system was intended to protect NATO nations from a rogue state such as Iran. Yesterday, Mr. Putin took him up on the offer.
“The first proposal is to use the radar station rented by us in Azerbaijan which is entitled Gabala,” Mr. Putin said after his meeting with Mr. Bush.
“Yesterday, I had a conversation of this matter with the president of Azerbaijan. The existing agreement with Azerbaijan makes it possible for us to do this. And the president of Azerbaijan stressed that he will be only glad to contribute to the cause of global security and stability.
“We can do this automatically, and hence the whole system which is being built as a result will cover not only part of Europe but the entire Europe without an exception,” Mr. Putin said. “This would also … allow us not to redirect our rockets [to targets in Europe] and, on the contrary, allow us to create conditions for joint work.”Mr. Bush called the idea one of several “interesting suggestions” offered by Mr. Putin.
“As a result of our discussions, we both agreed to have a strategic dialogue, an opportunity to share ideas and concerns,” Mr. Bush said. “This is a serious issue and we want to make sure that we all understand each other’s positions very clearly. As a result of these conversations, I expect there to be better understanding of the technologies involved and the opportunities to work together.”A Kremlin spokesman said last night that Mr. Putin’s suggestion of using a Russian-operated radar in Azerbaijan would remove any need for a U.S. radar in the Czech Republic or anywhere in eastern Europe. But U.S. officials who briefed reporters after the presidents’ meeting did not say whether accepting the Azerbaijan offer would mean canceling the installation in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Many Euro-lefties and Democrats (re:Zbig’s slap about clumsiness) were elated by Russia’s anti-missile rhetoric. Why? Cold War habits on their part. They also invested heavily in condemning anti-missile defense, from Reagan’s SDI on to Bush’s decision to not renew the ABM Treaty. (Heck, Nancy Pelosi was opposing missile defense three years ago.) Talk about a diplomatic fossil – by the mid-1980s technology had overrun the ABM Treaty. However, Reagan’s decision to pursue Strategic Defense fit right in with the Democrats’ propaganda meme of “Republican warmongers.” Remember, like Bush today, they called Reagan “Hitler” and a “cowboy.”
The irony is that missile defense now unites former antagonists.
A speech by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the “Security and defense agenda” conference in Brussels (June 8, 2007) showed up today in NATO’s email listserv. (I got on that email list before the Kosovo War when it was run as an “update” service by NATO South. Like most of these listservs it vacillates between institutional propaganda and useful “heads up” about NATO-related diplomacy.) I don’t have a link at the moment but here’s a quote from that speech:
We are also cooperating well, concretely, with one country in particular when it comes to Afghanistan. That country is Russia. Afghanistan is a clear example that today’s headlines – and some of the overheated rhetoric – do not reflect fully relations between Russia and the West. NATO and Russia have come a long way together in the ten years since we signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and the five years since we established the NATO-Russia Council. There has been more and more cooperation between our military forces. We have agreed a comprehensive Action Plan on Terrorism, and ambitious programmes of technical cooperation in airspace management and theatre missile defence. As I mentioned, we have joined forces to build counter-narcotics capabilities in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Just last month the State Duma in Moscow ratified the Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement between NATO and Russia, a step that will allow even closer practical cooperation.
Because I know where we have been, and how far we have come, I am disappointed when I hear comments by President Putin and other senior Russian officials which suggest a tendency to look at today’s challenges through the lens of the past. I understand that there are Russian concerns – about MD, about NATO enlargement, about arms control. But I think the way in which these concerns are being aired and handled could frankly be better.
Take the issue of missile defence. The proliferation of missile technology is not a development that should concern only the members of NATO. As Secretary General, I have not only emphasised the indivisibility of Allied security, but also the need to have a frank and transparent debate with our Russian friends on this issue, aimed at concrete cooperation. We have done that, often in the NRC. And under the NATO-Russia Council, we have developed close cooperation on theatre missile defence. I saw recent comments from Foreign Minister S. Lavrov about broadening that cooperation, which I welcome. Against that background, however let me say clearly that warnings that Russian missiles might once again be targeted at Europe are unhelpful, unwelcome and frankly anachronistic. I hope that what we hear from Heiligendamm indeed means that they are talking about these issues. The NATO Allies and the US have been very frank and open on third site issues. Let’s talk, let’s engage.
Note the theme of “we’re in this together.” And Russia is in it with the West.
As for Kosovo – last week Russia and Serbia both issued diplomatic statements that said they oppose the creation of an independent Kosovo. Serbia is pleased at the increasingly testy diplomatic exchanges between Russia and the US. At the minimum Serbia regards Russia’s diplomatic language and willingness to publicly back Serbia’s position as a bargaining chip in its continuing discussions with the United Nations over Kosovo’s “final status.” Russia is concerned about setting a precedent for European “devolution.” Russia also sees itself as the traditional protector of the “south Slavs.” The battle is between the UN and Serbia, but Russia wields a UN security council veto. I’m betting Kosovo’s status is not a “make or break” issue for US-Russia relations, but unlike the anti-missile issue, it is genuine clash of interests.
UPDATE: Putin says he’ll share radar date.
The lede from Reuters:
Russia is ready to share information from a radar station it controls in Azerbaijan with the U.S. military, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.
“Qabala completely covers the whole region that worries the Americans,” Putin told a news conference at the end of a G8 summit, referring to the radar station. “We are ready on-line and in real-time to hand over all information.”
Putin proposed to President George W. Bush on Thursday that Washington use the Russian-controlled Qabala radar instead of deploying parts of a missile shield in central Europe meant to ward of the threat of attack from “rogue” states like Iran.
Putin wants the interceptors sited in Turkey, Iraq, or on “sea platforms.”
The US wants sites in Eastern Europe.
The big point: Russia is offering options and talking cooperation. The second big point: The Russian huff has been street theater since the mid-1990s. “Useful idiots” bought the schtick– but they always do. They made for sensational anti-American headlines.
I just want to share some concerns I have with the whole idea of a missile defense system. I think the whole idea is fishy. You should check out the documentary “Why We Fight,” which begins with Eisenhower’s farewell address in which he famously warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, urging us to always guard our liberty. The military-industrial complex has now grown into the ravenous monster Eisenhower feared. It employs thousands of people in every state and lobbies Congress for lucrative defense contracts. The B-52 bomber had a part manufactured in every state so that if any congressman voted against military funding, they could be accused of costing the state jobs. We just can’t get rid of it at this point. The Constitution provides for Congress to “maintain” a navy, but to “raise” an army. The contemplation was that a standing army was a threat to liberty and peace, because why have an army around if you’re not going to use it? A permanent standing army ensures endless war, which is what we’ve been involved in nonstop around the world for the last century. Unfortunately, with the myriad threads that have grown since 1776, I accept that a standing army is now a necessity — which is why we must, as Eisenhower warned, redouble oversight and public accountability, and make sure not to play politics with war. This administration has consistently and recklessly disregarded that sober advice. Take this missile defense system. I think that it exists for no reason other than to make defense contractors rich. It is another excuse for them to feed at the public trough. It’s nothing but war profiteering propped up by fear-mongering. Really, isn’t it an absurd waste of resources? Who is going to fire a missile at us or at our interests? It’s an illogical delivery system for a weapon of mass destruction. If anyone fires a missile at us, we will respond with overwhelming force and wipe them off the face of the map. We would know exactly where the missile came from. Furthermore, we would have some time to prepare while the missile was on its way. The danger posed by a nuclear device hidden in a suitcase, in the innards of an automobile, or in the container of a poorly inspected cargo ship are much greater. So in order to foreclose to terrorists or rogue nations their precisely LEAST effective, MOST expensive, and most suicidal delivery option, we spend billions and billions of dollars. Does that make sense? Is that an efficient allocation of resources in the War on Terror(tm)? Thank you for listening to my perspective. Thank you for your post.
Comment by Argyrios — 6/8/2007 @ 10:07 am
> Who is going to fire a missile at us or at our interests? I Iran > If anyone fires a missile at us, we will respond with overwhelming force and wipe them off the face of the map. Iran does not care if we wipe them out. They are “holy warriors” who will go to Heaven and receive 72 virgins for killing infidels. > Furthermore, we would have some time to prepare while the missile was on its way. Prepare to do what? We would have about 20 minutes to kiss our ass goodbye!
Comment by Just Me — 6/8/2007 @ 11:16 am
Argyrios, I disagree with your assessment that no one would fire, or threaten to fire, a missile at the US or our allies. Iran makes veiled threats on a regular basis, and it is quite feasible that they might threaten to fire missiles at Europe to prevent European nations from interfering with other actions by Iran (like wiping Israel off the map). If anyone actually fired missiles we would know where they came from, and we might well return the favor as you pointed out, but doesn’t this argue in FAVOR of a missile defense system? I prefer “we don’t want to kill hundreds of thousands of your citizens in a retaliatory attack, so we are going to spend lots of money to make sure you cannot kill our citizens” over “we can kill more people than you can, so you’d better not try it”. Missile defense does not eliminate every threat presented by rogue nations and the terrorists they support, but it enables us to protect ourselves and our allies from missile attacks, thus limiting the options of rogue nations and allowing us to focus attention and resources on the other threats they present. Therefore, in the longrun I think it is an effective allocation of resources.
Comment by JeanE — 6/8/2007 @ 11:17 am
I would take my disagreement with argyrios back even further. What was Eisenhower’s fear about the military-industrial complex? You move easily to the conclusion that he was primarily worried about the US using its military power too readily. There is nothing in Ike’s comments about that. He was concerned that the interpenetration of the military and industrial sectors caused excessive lobbying influence - not lobbying to go to war, but to buy expensive weapons and programs. The standard progressive assumption has been “Well yeah, but if we have them, we’ll use them.” That sounds plausible - except it hasn’t happened.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — 6/8/2007 @ 12:38 pm
JeanE, First, thank you for your reply. I respect your motivation to prevent escalation of violence and to concentrate resources. The problem I see with your argument about concentrating resources is twofold: First, in addition to a very large initial investment, such a system would represent a permanent commitment that would continue to drain resources as long as it is in place. Personnel and maintenance would not be the only cost, because the system would require continual research, testing, and improvements to keep pace with technology. In the long run, this would not concentrate resources but continue to waste them. Second, the argument reflects a mindset that, “long term,” global instability will continue and escalate. We should be working to prevent that, looking forward to an age of peaceful coexistence. We must not lose sight of that goal. Diplomacy with nations like Iran is the long-term solution. Both people who replied have mentioned Iran. I wonder if either of you had in mind at the time the fact that we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, because he nationalized the oil industry and tried to stop Western powers from raping his country and stealing her resources. We engineered a coup and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah, a brutal dictator friendly to American interests, who lived a lavish lifestyle while selling out his people. This lead directly to the Iranian revolution and the rise of militant Islam, and you can hardly blame them. Before indicting an entire nation, try to think objectively about their motivation, from their perception. I guarantee that an Iranian always has that history in mind when considering how to deal with the United States. The solution to rogue states is to make peace, foster trust, apologize for past transgressions, and stop attempting to dominate the world. We as a nation should be strong, but prudent. The President of Iran is a clown, and nobody really respects him. But his comment about “wiping Israel off the map” suffers in translation. A better translation would be that Israel will disappear into the mists of history. Not a nice sentiment, to be sure, but nothing that was meant to imply pre-emptive military action against that country — an act which would be as illogical as it would be absurd. People are rational beings. I am sure that even JustMe would agree that Iranians are people with the same genetic predispositions at birth. People don’t sacrifice their life unless they are motivated very profoundly by a cause they perceive to be very important. I reject the idea that suicide terrorists are motivated by the desire to get their 72 virgins in heaven. The underlying cause of the violence is political; the people who run the schools and brainwash recruits with militant fundamentalism have grievances. There is some argument appealing to our enemies’ innate, human sense of justice and their view of history, arguments that compels their action. We need to understand our enemy in order to foster peace, and we need to address grievances in a respectful way. Respect fosters respect. Escalation fosters escalation. The missile defense system is another way of escalating militarism and seeking to maintain dominance. That is why I feel it is a mistake. Again, I appreciate your time reading this. Peace.
Comment by Argyrios — 6/8/2007 @ 1:00 pm
AssistantVillageIdiot. You are right that Eisenhower was primarily concerned with wasted resources going to military programs, resources that could have been used on social programs. You wrote: “He was concerned that the interpenetration of the military and industrial sectors caused excessive lobbying influence - not lobbying to go to war, but to buy expensive weapons and programs.” My position is that the missile defense system is precisely this sort of program. You say that my position sounds plausible but has not happened. I find that an amazing assertion. Vietnam by itself would provide a strong counterargument. There was no Gulf of Tonkin incident, and we knew it. We lied and went to war anyway, war profiteers got rich, and 50,000 American youths died along with millions of Vienamese. But before and after Vietnam, we were intervening militarily all over the world. Sometimes, we backed revolutionaries attempting to overthrow governments of varying degrees of democratic legitimacy, as we did with the Shah and with the Bay of Pigs and recently, in our support of the failed coup against Hugo Chavez. Other times, our forces directly intervene to prop up American interests, as in Iraq, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, etc. Thank you for your response. Respect.
Comment by Argyrios — 6/8/2007 @ 1:10 pm
Missile Defense is a solution in search of a problem, and a poorly working solution at that. Even under ideal test conditions, the system’s track record so far leaves a lot to be desired. Delivering warheads on the end of a missile is sooooo old school. All that missile defense does is accelerate the development of alternate methods of delivery (briefcase, shipping container, etc.) which already have numerous advantages, relative anonimity being one of them. It’s like locking your car in a bad neighborhood, but leaving the windows down. By the time the thing is up and running, it’ll be obsolete. Another multi billion dollar albatross around the neck of the taxpayers. I’m surprised the Russians care at all about the damn thing.
Comment by Reluctant Republican — 6/8/2007 @ 1:14 pm
People keep leaving out one other little thing about missile defense versus Russia… accidental nuclear war. Their ICBM command and control technology, quite frankly, is really scary. In a bad way. They nearly went to a full launch mode as recently as 1995, and a couple of times before that, such as the infamous 1983 panic. Look up “Stanislav Petrov” some time, for a lesson in why limited-launch countermissiles could be a Good Thing. All it takes is one really bad day in the Kremlin, or a missile launch commander deciding that they need to be incredibly hard-line (”the Americans would never launch if we only fire one ICBM!”), or a team of terrorists getting hold of one of their mobile ICBMs. One shot, and EVERYTHING gets into play. Even one imaginary shot that you know you can’t do anything about… (The US nearly accidentally started a “spasm war” a couple of different times in the 1970s and 1980s, by the way, so it hasn’t always been a one-way street.) So yes, having a small ABM capability is very much worthwhile. Even if it counters only one accidental or intentional launch versus a major city, that alone would pay for every dollar spent on ABM systems since the 1950s - and if it prevents a full out “spasm war,” the cost suddenly becomes negligible.
Comment by cirby — 6/8/2007 @ 2:20 pm
“Take this missile defense system. I think that it exists for no reason other than to make defense contractors rich.” Take this statement to Israel and see if they agree. Take it to Japan, same question. Take it to Taiwan, same question. All three countries have been attacked with missiles (Israel) or had hostile countries chuck warfighting missiles over their heads. To say that America shouldn’t develop technology to defeat all classes of missiles is ignorant of current facts of life. I seem to remember the Philip Coyles of the world saying a decade or more ago, “You can’t hit a bullet with a bullet”. Then when that was demonstrated repeatedly, it was “The tests aren’t realistic and don’t take account of decoys”. That crowd will say that up until the first ICBM is knocked down by a US system. Then that crowd will say something like, “Well you could have appeased country X, rather than provoke them” or some such nonsense.
Comment by richardb — 6/8/2007 @ 2:38 pm
Forgive me for sounding frivolous about an important issue, but it seems to me that Putin’s bluster and quick resolution may have less to do with geo-politics than a need to get some attention on the world stage during the G8 meetings:
Comment by Robert Stein — 6/8/2007 @ 3:22 pm
Richard B, Thank you for bringing up the topic of international support for America spending our tax money on a missile defense program to defend them. My main point is this: A missile defense system will cost a lot and gives us some chance of stopping a WMD attack. The downsides are the cost, the chance of failure, and the fact that it only gives us protection against the “missile” delivery system, which in the context of terrorism is precisely the delivery method least likely to be used. Instead, those resources could be used to fight poverty and foster democracy in the parts of the world that breed terrorism, to securing our borders, and to improving our intelligence-gathering capabilites. The effect of such a security program would be synergistic — a friendlier relationship with the world, for example, would enable us to recruit more intelligence operatives with the cultural background necessary to succeed. This approach would be much more cost-effective and would protect us against all types of terrorism, regardless of the delivery method. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Cirby points out the threat of an accidental nuclear launch. I agree that this is the context in which a missile defense system makes the most sense. Again, I feel that the risk of an accidental loss can be reduced through prevention and backup systems much more cheaply. Nothing will ever completely eliminate the threat of a WMD being detonated inside America. The proper analytical framework in which to consider what our policy should be, is to consider how much reduced-risk-per-dollar we are getting. In that context, I feel that missile defense is way too narrow and too expensive to justify. It is important to note that we both share the goal of protecting America and fostering peace. Our disagreement stems from our differing assumptions on how much reduced-risk-per-dollar a missile defense system can afford. Thank you for bringing to the discussion issues and facts that underlie your beliefs. Please have a good day and I appreciate the responses.
Comment by Argyrios — 6/8/2007 @ 3:40 pm
Reluctant Republican Actually, defense against missiles has proven to be satisfactory. The big technical problem which doomed deployment before the ABM Treaty was the development of MIRV, which meant one missiles did not simply carry one warhead, but could carry 3,5, 10 warheads. That, plus the sheer number of ballistic launchers on each side, meant defense against mass attacks became impossible. However, defense against a limited numbers was considered far more feasible, which is why the ABM Treaty had the “one site” exception. The Soviets decided to defend Moscow. The US decided one site could not protect the entire USA and defending the missiles fields had little value once the missiles had been launched, so we shut ours down. You also assume that a nuclear weapon will come in a suitcase, cargo container, oil drum. Perhaps. But one thing that get overlooked is that if you are a nation that has nukes, you want the MAXIMUM amount of control on them right up until they are used. A portable nuke compromises that control because you have to essential leave it under control of your agents, in the open, for a period of time. The agents can get caught. They can have fits of uncertainty, meaning they might use it. They might even go rogue, and use it before you want to, or use it despite your orders NOT to (A Shi’ite agent of Iran going to detonate his weapon in Riyadh instead of New York, because he hates the House of Saud more than he hates the US? Quite possible.). Even established intelligence agencies and militaries would have to think long and hard before sending out people with portable nukes to the field. The problems of stopping one are immense, but it is not all that easy to use one, either. A ballistic launcher, on the other hand, remains under your control until it gets destroyed onsite or you launch it. You have far more control over a longer period of time, than a portable nuke. It obviously does have weaknesses (An ICBM can be taken out by commandoes - both the Special Forces and the Spetznaz practice this scenario - before it can be used.). But control-wise, even a SLBM is better than a portable nuke.
Comment by Argyll — 6/8/2007 @ 4:19 pm
Argyrios, “Again, I feel that the risk of an accidental loss can be reduced through prevention and backup systems much more cheaply.” Heck, we can’t even get Russia to cooperate on simpler and easier issues, you think they’re going to allow us to “meddle” with their nuclear launch and warning system? The “backup system” for ICBMs is more ICBMs. The “prevention system” is “gee, I don’t really want to die today.”
Comment by cirby — 6/8/2007 @ 6:26 pm
argy; “People are rational beings.” False. Especially if it means that people can be expected to turn away from self-destructive acts. I won’t bore anyone with a list of instances, macro and micro-scale, that disprove that one. People are fundamentally emotional. Emotions are not per se insane, but they direct and select our thought patterns. What we like we justify and try to increase; what we dislike we excoriate and try to eliminate. Those who love to “be rational” are getting their jollies out of avoiding harm and cultivating a self- and public image which collects points for “rationality.” Einstein: “All these primary impulses [emotional needs and drives], not easily described in words, are the springs of man’s actions.” Etc. So — understand the EMOTIONAL environment in which the other or the enemy operates, and you will do far better a predicting his behaviour than if you set up some abstract “rational reaction model”. Economists are famous for making this error, however much they pretend they take individual variations into account with statistical averaging, for example. Militarily,: Montgomery — “The morale of the soldier is the greatest single factor in war.” Emotion rules. Get used to it — and to the idea of it.
Comment by Brian H — 6/8/2007 @ 7:36 pm
Argyll I’m not sure what leads you to say that defense against missiles has been “proven to be satisfactory”. It has only been tested under tightly controlled conditions, and with limited success at that. It would only be proven satisfactory IMO if it stopped an actual threat, which it hasn’t. Also, I don’t assume that a weapon is delivered in any fashion of my choosing, but rather I’m open to the idea that it can come from one of many directions. Let’s suppose it comes from a submarine located just off of one of our coasts. This maintains far better control over the warhead than an ICBM could hope to provide, and doesn’t give NMD systems a ghost of a chance to defend. I stand by my prior statements. A truly operational missile defense system (assuming we spend enough to develop one), only serves to slightly modify what an opponent may perceive to be their most successful method of delivery, and at tremendous cost. Superman’s cape, it ain’t.
Comment by Reluctant Republican — 6/8/2007 @ 7:43 pm
Argyrios wrote– “We need to understand our enemy in order to foster peace, and we need to address grievances in a respectful way. Respect fosters respect. ” Sounds like a candidate for the Chamberlain Award for 2007. “PEACE IN OUR TIME”. Argyrios, it would be one thing if the enemy whom we somehow don’t understand was a man of peace, gentility and cultural loftiness, and it was just us barbarians who didn’t ‘get’ him. We can always up our game to understand the lofty ones, if we try… But what we can’t do is understand the fanatical, the Allah-minded, the happy murderers who believe they are doing God’s will. Because there’s nothing to negotiate with those people. How do you approach negotiations with someone who begins with the premise that they’re going to kill you? Offer him a leg, or maybe a kidney, in return for your life? What if he didn’t come to the negotiations with any throwaways? What if he wants what he wants, period, and believes that our tendency to negotiate betrays our weakness and tells him it will be easy to defeat us? When an enemy kills to demoralize you, and your response is to negotiate, he will kill more and more until you respond properly in his view– BY SURRENDERING. Iran doesn’t want peace with us. It wants Shia Islam dominant in the whole world, and it is financing and training thousands of killers to demoralize and defeat Ã…merica. It is also building nuclear weapons, and as you say, why have them unless you’re going to use them? Strength is all they respect. Not goodness, or flexibility, or willingness to negotiate, or desire to get along. Only strength. All that other junk is just screaming ‘weak weak weak’ to them. If you really want peace, show so much strength and so much willingness to use it that nobody dares cross you. Do good, but do NOT be afraid to throw everything you’ve got against the bad. That fear of conflict is an unmistakeable sign to them.
Comment by Dave — 6/8/2007 @ 7:47 pm
Missile defence is cheaper and easier than developing and maintaining ICBM,patriot missiles cost around 1 million each ICBM’s 60 million. and rising because of multiple warheads stealth etc. defence will get cheaper and more effective, hence the bellicosity from those invested on the wrong side.
Comment by John Anthony — 6/8/2007 @ 11:44 pm
Let’s look at the facts: 1) Iran probably only has a small number of missiles, as only five countries (US, China, Russia, Britain, and France) have large deterrents (more then 100 missiles), and Iran, like Pakistan, is poor relative to these countries. 2) Countermissiles now have about a 50% success rate, meaning only four are needed to bring down one ICBM, and IRBM’s, what Iran uses, are easier to shoot down. 3) We are cooperating with Russia, which is a huge relief considering recent events. 4) Iran is, for religious reasons, not intimidated by our nukes. It may seem strange here in the US, but to them, Death is the goal, which when you think about it, is not entirely irrational. Moslems often don’t cry at funerals. 5) It costs less to build a missile shield in Azerbaijan then to invade Teheran. 6) We don’t have bomb shelters anymore, and even when we did, we didn’t have enough, and our cities are too big to evacuate using the Interstates. That’s right Baby boomers, the government lied to you about ducking and convering. In short, with a stronger relationship with Russia and Europe, and a stronger deterrent against Teheran, there is no rational reason to oppose countermissile coverage for Iran, especially when we have the technological means to do it. Even the foreign policy gain alone is worth it.
Comment by Jeremy Janson — 6/9/2007 @ 6:12 am
The cost may be high but where does the money go, into the economy.
Comment by davod — 6/9/2007 @ 6:54 am
Let’s be under no misunderstandings here, Russia is our rival for influence in the world, the power players in Moscow are deeply resentful about the their loss of world influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they are not going to do us any favors. That said, there are areas of cooperation and interdepence and overall it is highly desirable to have a comfortable, to use that cold war word, coexistence with Russia. At this moment we particularly need their at least neutrality in the middle east. This raises the question of why on earth would the USA choose now to install a few rockets and a radar station on their doorstep as part of a system which looks like it doesn’t work against a negligible threat. I’ve asked myself the question several times and the only answer I can come up with is simple ineptitude. Obviously the foreign policy apparatus of the US is full of people with agendas and it is partly the task of the president and his top advisors notably the S of S and NSA to coordinate the whole, make sure we are not pursuing contrary objectives etc etc. The simple fact is these folks can’t drive the car. American foreign policy is riddled with contradictions of which this just one. The fact that Bay has to devote acres of print to to attacking what is another very cogently argued review of the situation by Brzezinski, who unlike Mr Bay has been proved completely accurate on Iraq, speaks volumes about what is going on here. This is alas just the latest example of White House incompetence in the exercise of this great country’s foreign policy.
Comment by John — 6/9/2007 @ 7:22 am
why on earth would the USA choose now to install a few rockets and a radar station on their doorstep as part of a system which looks like it doesn’t work against a negligible threat. I’ve asked myself the question several times and the only answer I can come up with is simple ineptitude. That, and I would add that this enabled Bush to play Reagan for a few days. The chief danger isn’t a resumption of the Cold War but the strengthening of the revanchists inside Russia.
Comment by Mark Zimmerman — 6/9/2007 @ 8:03 am
Some on here argue that missile tech is passe and it’s unlikely that our enemies would use it against us. So why do they (Iran,Syria, North Korea) keep buying and building them? Also the Iranian regime and their apologists here always bring up the US backed coup of 1953 as justification for their hatred/fear of the US. That was 54 years ago for crying out loud! How long do they get to hold that against us 100 years? 200 years? Gimme a break. Furthermore, while the Shah may not have been the nicest guy in the world, the Iranian people were freer and more prosperous under him than they are now. Stop trying to find an American plot behind every problem. You know who is really behind Iran’s agression toward the US?- Iranians.
Comment by CristobalGordo — 6/9/2007 @ 8:36 am
The United States is not being “victimized” by what is sometimes called the “Military-Industrial Complex”. There is another name for this segment of the U.S. industrial sector. It really is the “Arsenal of Democracy”, and it has protected our freedom for a long time now. We can afford to develop missile defense and missile offense and intelligence and conventional arms all at the same time. It’s not either or. I say that we need it all. More nuclear aircraft carriers. More nuclear submarines. More F-22 raptors, More v-22 Ospreys, more MRAPS, more C-17 Globemasters. More newly evolving littoral combat ship concepts. More F-35 Lightening II’s. More space-based assets for intel, and yes, protecting those assets with Orbital kill vehicles. More UAV’s, more UCAV’s. More Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. More of the most effective asset we produce, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. More Special Operators from all services. Speaking of Iran above, they should really consider the reality that a formation of B-2 Spirits can appear over Tehran any night, they will not know it until the first target blows up, then they will be firing blindly into the night sky, wasting AA ammo just like Saddam did. Unfortunately, the mullahs are not rational like the Soviets were. They have goals that they don’t mind sacrificing half of Iran to accomplish. We need to be vigilant, and ready when they make their move, because they will.
Comment by brian — 6/9/2007 @ 9:13 am
So we are dammed if we do dammed if we don’t. Either way we are the bad guys. Basically, if we take the hard line on Iran and say we will not let you get nukes under any circumstances we are acting too unilateraly by implying we will use force if need be. The missile defense is (at least partially) basically a way of saying we aren’t going to strike Iran if they do end up with the nuke. But still, somehow we are the bad guys.
Comment by Justin — 6/9/2007 @ 11:07 am
I still love the way the media goes to Brzezinski, architect of the worst foreign policy since the Civil War, for advice on how to deal with the world. He and Carter helped create the Iran we need to deal with today. Good grief.
Comment by Kurmudge — 6/9/2007 @ 1:25 pm
Mr. Argyrios, As an Iranian Christian driven from his country by the mullahs’ rule, I take firm exception to your descriptions of Dr. Mossedeq and the Shah of Iran. Mossadeg was an Iranian patriot, but so was the Shah. He was not a “brutal dictator”, but rather an enlightened despot, who sought to elevate his nation and its people out of the 7th and into the 20th century. Unlike Mossadeq, the Shah was able to maneouver the West into giving up it’s control of Iranian oil fields, and maintain good relations with them. He used his relationship with the West to modernize Iran’s economy and its military, and to bring prosperity to millions of ordinary Iranians, including non-Muslims like me. Yes, he repressed his enemies, but in the end, when he had the means to kill thousands to stay in power, he backed off, preferring to lose power rather than kill tens of thousands of his countrymen. In contrast, the mullahs have BRUTALLY (notice my accurate use of this word, versus, your highly inaccurate one), murdered tens of thousand of the regime’s opponents. Women who are sentenced to die are raped before their execution, because virgins get to go to heaven. This is the regime you so blithely defend, and the Shah, a man of courage and vision, is one you so cavalierly attack. Shame on you, sir.
Comment by Freedom Lover — 6/9/2007 @ 3:28 pm
I am so glad that Argyrios is so much smarter than all the military people of the Soviet Union, US, UK, France, China and Israel. After all, since they all have developed nuclear missiles, and Argyrios says they are a bad platform for such a weapon, well, that is good enough for me. Stand them all down say I. Not.
Comment by Don Meaker — 6/9/2007 @ 4:03 pm
Look at Argyrios’s assumptions: Iran is given the benefit of the doubt. The US is not. Everything revolves around US “provocations” Every other nation is merely reacting protectively or swayed by “evil” US actions. These are not the arguments of a serious person, rather someone who responds emotionally and irrationally to his need to be “loved” on the world stage and get approval from meaningless bodies that are not worth a warm bucket of spit, i.e. the UN and EU. Iran is a major threat that is already at war with us: seizure of our Embassy (act of war) and holding our diplomats hostage (act of war) and Beirut Barracks bombing (act of war) and Khobar Towers bombing (act of war) and Buenos Aires bombing that violated the Monroe Doctrine (act of war) and killing our soldiers in Iraq (act of war) and seizing allies naval personnel (act of war) and killing our soldiers in Afghanistan (act of war) and allowing the 9/11 hijackers to cross their borders without stamping their visas (act of war) and harboring senior AQ leaders including Saad bin Laden (act of war). Iran is already at war with us, and we have done nothing. Iran can rightly feel they can nuke Rome, Paris, London, Athen, or whatever European nation with impunity and/or threaten to act as Muslims protector in Europe. Demanding say recognition of special rights for Muslims or even imposition of Sharia law there. Iran from Khomeni on has said this is their strategic goal. [Of course Argyrios is happy to contemplate Israel’s nuking: destruction of Israel both confirms America’s impotence and the usual leftist anti-Nationalism / anti-Americanism and conforms to the approval of the anti-Semitic European and Third World Left.] Iran of course is not the only danger. Libya is ruled by an unstable dictator and could install a set of nuclear ballistic missiles and present the same problem. The same could be said for Morocco, Egypt, and Syria. Pakistan is in slow motion collapse to the Taliban and Islamists, so it’s also a threat. CHINA thinks Ballistic Missile defense is a great idea and is going full bore. Once they have it (and we don’t) they can credibly threaten us to gain favorable access to ME oil. So for example they could nuke Israel on behalf of Iran or Saudi or whoever and get favorable oil deals (below market prices). Or other nasty things. Being defenseless and weak may appeal to elites who prize victim status in society circles, but it’s not a serious proposal for any rational being.
Comment by Jim Rockford — 6/9/2007 @ 4:18 pm
Does anyone bother reading Eisenhower’s speech? As time goes on, I find it more and more amazing that no one mentions Ike’s lament that people are spending too much time in front of computers. “For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.” That’s was in 1960.
Comment by Charles — 6/9/2007 @ 4:21 pm
“People are rational beings.” Have you never read a good biography of Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin? Please, look especially close at Hitler in late 1944 and in 1945.
Comment by Lunatic — 6/9/2007 @ 5:50 pm
Cold War - Perception versus Reality I started writing this post a few days ago before my day job created its own furor. One man’s perception is another’s reality. It is thus difficult for me to accept a blanket statement by President Bush that the cold
Trackback by Stormwarning's Counterterrorism — 6/9/2007 @ 6:24 pm
Your logic justifying missle defense is hopelessly dated, a further sign that some people cannot help but view the world through the old lens of Cold War realities. Yes, ABM defense dates back two decades to Reagan - that’s precisely the point. Its basis was justified during a different era and when nation states were our greatest security threat. Were we even interested in protecting Europe from Iran and others, which is not a likely scenario, the stationing of these units in Eastern Europe is senseless provocation of Russia and understandably caused the reaction it did. Interestingly, even the European “allies” we hope to protect through such actions are speaking out against this resumption of cold war animosities. I am in support of much of what this administration has done domestically; in foreign policy, we have witnessed the dangerous mistakes of an administration which has refused to update their realpolitik perspective in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world.
Comment by jagrmeister — 6/9/2007 @ 7:09 pm
Why does the academic and jounalistic community permit Zbigniew Brzezinski to get away with his partisan, leftist misstatements? The guy was wrong as Carter’s National Security advisor. He has been wrong on almost everything since and continues to be wrong today. The guy must hate Geo W Bush so much that he has lost any sense of reality or intellectual honesty. The man needs to retire and enroll his son in a monastery.
Comment by Charles Torkko — 6/9/2007 @ 9:30 pm
I had the privilege to be one of ten selected for an annual National Security Seminar at Columbia University with Dr. Brzezinski. That was back in the late 1980’s when he was talking and acting more like a Republican than a Democrat. It would appear that in his remaining years he’s decided to come home. And it also makes it easier to sell his book to the lefties if he trashes Bush. I doubt his books sold all that well in conservative circles anyway. And like so many of the other aging lions of the Cold War he must feel a bit left out of the loop by the new generation of National Security policy practitioners which have taken over. This is his last hurrah and I guess he figures the bigger the noise the better. P.S. Argyrios: Enough with the “military industrial complex” stuff. That’s so stale! Get some new material. Let me guess… are you a Ron Paul supporter?
Comment by Mike's America — 6/9/2007 @ 9:41 pm
ICBMs are, in generic terms, sub-orbital launch vehicles. Until very recently, there were no other sub-orbital launch vehicles worth worrying about. There are now and soon there will be more. The private space tourism business creates a use case where hijackers can replicate 9/11 and, once again, we’re going to be entirely unable to bring down the threat. This time it’s not because NORAD doesn’t have internally facing radars and no plan to handle the situation but because at least some of these suborbital vehicles are going to be capable of reentry speeds faster than our current limited anti-missile systems (Patriot) are capable of handling. Talk all you like about the unlikelihood of Iran, N. Korea, the PRC or Russia launching, you still have to find an answer for private suborbital launch vehicles.
Comment by TMLutas — 6/9/2007 @ 9:57 pm
It is obvious that Putin outfoxed Bush in such an obvious way that I cannot believe that the U.S. Govt. pundits did not see it coming. Of course, the missle defense system was to be aimed at Russia. However, by making it look like Iran was the one to be defended against Bush sunk his own plan. It was just too easy for Putin to say that he would join in and practically deep six the whole project. To qoute someone, they should all take penis enlargment pills and shut up. Putin’s offer will be rejected since the plan is to treaten Russia and divide the Europe, especially from Russia. American neo-cons still dream of a world domination and Russia together with most of the free World clearly stay on its way. The rejection will show the real intentions to all and discount all the American propaganda to all.
Comment by J. Lee — 6/10/2007 @ 8:36 am
Freedom Lover, I am sorry for offending you, and I do not doubt that your experience gives you a firmer foundation for your opinions of the Shah and Mossadegh. However, I want you to think about the series of events that led to the Iranian Revolution of which you and I both disapprove and ask yourself: If we had not intervened in Iran, would that country have had an Islamic revolution? Perhaps. But our actions handed the support of a large majority of the country to religious extremists and made their success inevitable and easy. That was short-sighted and frankly idiotic of our government. We need to stop doing things like that. My larger point is that our actions have consequences, and a foreign policy based on intervention only when asked, and then only with the end of helping the country in which we intervene, would be much, much better for America’s long term interests than our historical policy. I am speaking only from a practical perspective, not a moral one. I do not support Ron Paul, but his perspective on foreign policy is the most enlightened of any of the Republican candidates.
Comment by Argyrios — 6/10/2007 @ 11:11 am
First the concept the need for missile defense is not negated by the fact that small suitcase nukes can be smuggled across the border. Do you not lock your doors at night when a burglar can break a window and get in. Heck why not leave the door unlocked so when your stuff is stolen you wont have to pay for repairs to the window. Second deterrence only works for rational actors it has little effect non rational actors such as upon death cultists. Heck prior to WWII people the majority of the popular experts were firmly convinced Hitler and Japan would never go war with the West the economics of it suggested that Hitler had far more to gain from peace than war yet off to war it was. Everyone also knew Hitlers racist NAZI socialists would never ally with Imperial Japan but they did. Missile defense is weapon a concept still evolving into functional systems. The pacifist and the left of the world conveniently forget missile defense was proven in the late 1960’s early 1970’s(look up Sprint and Startan missile systems). It took over 1000 Soviet SA2 surface to air missiles (SAMs)to bring down a U2 with Gary Powers in 1960. Obviously SAMs were worthless and should not have been developed further yet developed they were into many highly effective system. If the US really wanted a quick, cheap, highly efficient, >95% kill probability they could either dust off the old Sprint and Spartan systems update the install modern electronics and other updates from the current ABM systems under development and install W30 nukes(2 - 5 kT yield)on them. It is strictly for political reasons the US has gone the none nuclear interceptor route. Opponents of missile defense conveniently forget the Russian have maintained an Anti-Ballistic Missile site(their system is armed with nuclear warheads)outside of Moscow from the 1970’s to now go tell them they’re wasting their money. They also are forging ahead with missile defense projects.
Comment by J.Cee — 6/10/2007 @ 12:56 pm
Funny that no one mentioned that in this month’s Popular Mechanics they have an article of two successful test on ABM. Before the dummy missiles were launched the defenders did not know a test was about to take place. Go to their site and read about it.
Comment by James Stephenson — 6/11/2007 @ 9:49 am
Mr.Putin has used this offer to back door a request that the Missile Shield cover Russia as well. By grudgingly offering the Azerbaijani site, coverage is extended to Russia as well as Eastern Europe by perforce. Yet for domestic Russian political reasons, he did not appear to cave in to the USA or apply as a supplicant. The net result, is that Russia is protected from the crazies on its southern border, and can eventually be protected from the Chinese Dragon too.
Comment by stas peterson — 6/11/2007 @ 4:02 pm
Ways to Influence People Online and Make Them Take Action
Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential. latest trend in automobile industry
Comment by somaie — 12/28/2009 @ 4:43 am