President Barack Obama on Thursday abandoned plans for a large missile defense shield in eastern Europe, promising instead a stronger, swifter defense system to protect U.S. allies against any threat from Iran.
In a brief announcement, Obama said he was dropping a plan to base interceptor missiles in Poland and build a radar system in the Czech Republic — a move that could ease tensions with Russia but fan regional fears of resurgent Kremlin influence.
Advertisement
Poland and Czech Republic took a big risk for us, annoying the Kremlin by agreeing to host those anti-missile bases. And keep in mind that those anti-missile missiles couldn’t do much to stop Russian missiles. First, there would have been too few of them. Second, most of Russia’s missiles would head north, over the pole and towards the US — safely out of range of the interceptors.
So what do you think will happen next time we need to ask something of Warsaw or Prague?
And there’s really nothing quite like a preemptive surrender, to Moscow and Tehran, on the eve of misguided talks with the Iranian government.
American submissiveness is considered a plus among the proglodytes.
But the world loves us now!!
Wrong quote. You should have cited the Flounder Principle.
What is the supposed advantage of this unconditional, pre-emptive surrender? I guess it’s just a matter of time before we wake up and see sirens on Drudge. Seriously, is this president playing some end-game? What does he want? Forget ideology. I’m looking for explanations in abnormal psychology.
Dear Leader hates America and wants us to be weakened, militarily and economically.
I wonder if Obama’s cowering posture will embolden China to reclaim Taiwan? Obama’s action is a clear signal that the US will no longer stand by its allies.
As for Israel, it seems to me that her enemies see in Obama’s naive tenure their best chance to match their apocalyptic rhetoric with action.
I guess this is the price for Russia’s help (or neutrality, at any rate) in dealing with Iran and Afghanistan.
Or, at least, I’m *hoping* we got something in return for this.
Coo, Obama just did Neville Chamberlain one better. Chamberlain only sold out the Czechs. See, this is how you go about repairing the horrendous damage the evilly stupid Bush 43 did to our image.
Did you happen to notice that the most emPATHETIC adminstration eh-vah announced this on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland?
Warm fuzzies aBOUND.
Okay, Gates is defending the decision and saying the fleet is a better base for the missiles, so I’m hanging in . . . for now.
What bugs me most about this — and I’ll go into this in some detail on Saturday’s PJM Political — is that whatever you think of the merits of the bases, the Poles and Czechs took a risk for us, and we just pulled the rug out from under them.
Putin gets a propaganda win at home, we piss off two of our best friends, and for no discernible advantage.
arhooley,
Maybe you’re being sarcastic, but what else is Gates going to say? He’s Obama’s secretary.
I’m beginning to be certain Obama, Lord of the Idiots, is the worst president in US history.
Poland is also one of only four countries who joined the United States in invading Iraq in 2003; the other three are the UK, Australia, and Denmark. We owe Poland for that, as well.
The Czech Republic, while it did not have troops in the invasion, did send troops to Iraq later.
Russia has been opposed to the Iraq invasion all along, yet we’re treating Russia better than we are Poland or the Czech Republic.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll close by noting that my father’s parents were Polish, as is, not surprisingly, my surname.
It’s funny, but after Germany invaded Poland the Brits and French asked Belgium’s permission to put troops in their country to defend against the expected onslaught and to protect the flank of the Maginot Line.
The Belgians wouldn’t let them because that would be “provocative”.
They’ve learned nothing. Defensive measures are never “provocative” except to people who want to invade.
I have a question about the missile defense deal.
I find it hard to believe it was all on a handshake, don’t we have treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic? And wouldn’t they have been ratified by Congress?
So, if there are these treaties, can Obama just decide to negate them?
Seriously, I just find it hard to believe we didn’t have a treaty over this.
Brad,
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I thought Gates was trustworthy on defense. I’ll stand corrected.
When I learned the details of the substitution of sea-launch for land-launch, my first thought was that we’re going to use a strategic asset for theater defense. Does that about describe it?
And am I the only one who sees a problem with it?
arhooley, my take on Gates is that he’s staying on merely to limit the damage to our national security that this administration wants to do.
Poland is used to being backstabbed. England was supposed to help her when Gerany attacked – they didn’t. FDR, Stalin and Churchill divvied her up and she still survived. I guess she is niave enough to think other countries have the integrity that she has.
McGeehee,
I see problems no matter where such defenses are placed. On land, it’s not easy to move them. On ships, they have a harder time protecting Central Europe when Russian subs are all over (under, actually) the Baltic. Placing missile defenses in the Mediterranean makes a lot of sense, since they could put Israel under the umbrella and allow us to not be protecting Israel but instead protecting our ships that happen to be near Israel (and with only seconds to calculate trajectories, we can’t be too careful, wink, nod.)
Really, this conversation is about what we’d do if Russia invaded from the East. The answer I can come up with is that we’d stop them from entering Germany. I really don’t think we’d be able to do much more than that at this point. Why Russia would do that at a time when they can just use Europe as a market for Russia’s huge reserves of oil, lumber, gas, and coal, I can’t say. Russia wants ports more than anything, and with its influence over its neighbors to its West, it can do that without having to resort to anything as obvious as an invasion. Putin is too craven for that, so he’ll have some terrorists blow up some apartment buildings first, destabilize the government, and then pick a successor. If the Soviet Era taught that guy anything, it’s that all his neighbors have a price. And if they don’t, Putin will name one anyhow.
the unmentioned problem that i see with using ship based missiles is that they can be withdrawn with such ease and so quickly. the cruiser based system might very well be adequate, i take gates at his word, but as soon as the noise dies down obama is free to redeploy the ships. neville chamberlain was just a man ahead of his time.
Ships make more sense in places such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Japan, as they are places where it would only lead to a likely buildup in the number of enemy missiles if we had land-based systems and obvious defense placements. With ship-based systems, they’re harder to track, more difficult to attack, their deployment can be denied, and they can be positioned as needed much more efficiently than land-based systems.
Jon, I wasn’t referring to problems with specifics. I was referring to problems with the idea of having strategic assets diverted to a non-strategic purpose on a longterm basis.
Seems to me that there are three possible logical scenarios here.
One, there is a quid pro quo with the Russians having to deal with Iran’s nuclear research. The administration has cut a deal to be revealed later with much ballyhoo about how the Russians are now on board with pressuring Iran to drop their nuclear ambitions.
Two, Obama is an idiot.
Three, Obama is so set on repudiating Bush’s foreign policy that he will reneg on previous committments to distance his brand from the previous administration.
I’m not sure which is the pick of the litter.
Regardless of which, that he did this on the 70th anniversary should serve notice to Europe that we will not defend you. We will not honor our obligations. We are too busy destroying ourselves from the inside to bother with you.
Ed Driscoll just brought this “photo-phunny” to my attention:
http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/european-abm-system/
My yesterday post has a “Your comment is awaiting moderation” heading, still; some earlier posts simply disappeared. That seems inescapably timid on your part. I hope that you reconsider.
As for Europe, the news media have distorted the news for ratings, as they usually do. Why report a crowd of 60,000 when you can report a crowd of millions? Why report dull, thrifty, promised, and predicted, policy decisions, when you can hype Armageddon?
The Obama administration has framed its national missile defense strategy with the caveat that continued support will be contingent on pragmatic and cost-effective technological advances and will “not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.” Missile defense experts interpret these statements to suggest the pace of development will slow (CQ), since the technologies have repeatedly failed in field tests…
… After considerable negotiations and with significant opposition from domestic publics, both the Czech Republic and Poland agreed in principle to host the systems… They seem ulikely to regret this respite. The proposed interceptor missiles in Poland, and radar system in the Czech Republic, turns them both into targets.
I’m not aware of any citizens of either country writing anything favorable about the installations, except for the profiteers positioned to make boondoggle billions by robbing taxpayers. Our nation suffers from similar parasites. The Soviet Union had no independent capitalist corporations for decades, so their tax paid profiteers may have even more practice than ours do.
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/09/17/thank-you-sir-may-i-have-another/#comments
I notice that my Sept. 17 posts still have the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” label. May I suggest that might seem a bit timid and lazy on your part?
The news media have distorted the news for ratings, as they usually do. Why report a crowd of 60,000 when you can report a crowd of millions? Why report dull, thrifty, promised, and predicted, policy decisions, when you can hype Armageddon?
The Obama administration has framed its national missile defense strategy with the caveat that continued support will be contingent on pragmatic and cost-effective technological advances and will “not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.” Missile defense experts interpret these statements to suggest the pace of development will slow (CQ), since the technologies have repeatedly failed in field tests…
… After considerable negotiations and with significant opposition from domestic publics, both the Czech Republic and Poland agreed in principle to host the systems… They seem ulikely to regret this respite. The proposed interceptor missiles in Poland, and radar system in the Czech Republic, turns them both into targets.
I’m not aware of any citizens of either country writing anything favorable about the installations, except for the profiteers positioned to make boondoggle billions by robbing taxpayers. Our nation suffers from similar parasites. The Soviet Union had no independent capitalist corporations, so their tax paid profiteers may have even more practice than ours do.
Sorry all; finally got a post to post (my IP address changed, if that helps any) and it double posted somehow, and apology did not post. Maybe this apology will.
That done, Stephen, if you prefer that I not post here, you need only to tell me.
Thanks.
McGeehee,
What’s not strategic about putting them on ships? I don’t see how they’re diverted from a strategic purpose if they’re still available to serve that purpose. It’s not as if we’ll only have two bases and this is some sort of zero-sum game where taking from A and B requires placement at C and D. If anything, we’ll probably deploy anti-missile defenses all over the globe. That seems to be the way our military operates.
This is all based on the idea that Russia would send missiles into other countries. If that was going to happen, it doesn’t matter if we had anti-missile defenses handy since the Russians would clearly be willing to have an all-out war. And that would kill millions just using conventional weapons, but I don’t see Russia to be in that big a hurry to kill off its customers.
Those missiles are theater defense missiles. They are not the strategic asset I’m concerned about. Since you’re having difficulty with the distinction it would undoubtedly be better for you to stay out of this discussion.
So the Aegis cruisers getting another job ruins our military’s overall effectiveness? I don’t really see how that’s true since most of our defenses are redundant and overlapping anyhow, but since you wish to show off your theater v. strategic terminological superiority I’ll just assume you’re saying that the missiles are on the wrong platform but only a military logophile would give a crap as to why. Or you could actually explain your oh-so-important distinction, but that’s clearly beneath you.