Russia

Decision Over Missile Defense System A Technological Reality

September 18, 2009 by Daniel

President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that the United States would be shelving the proposal for a European missile defense shield. The proposal would have placed radar systems and interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia had repeatedly expressed their disapproval over the defense shield, arguing that it would have interfered with the systems that were already in place.

Immediately following the announcement, criticism from many sides voiced their opinions. Everything from how Obama caved to Russian pressures, to how America was abandoning its allies and their interests. Among the criticism came a defense of the decision by the Department of Defense.

In defense, they offered a four-phased agenda that would provide a higher level of protection than the previous plan proposed under the Bush administration. The previous plan would have offered interceptor missiles that had yet to be built and tested, while the four-phased plan would allow the defense system to evolve “as the Iranian threat potentially evolves.”

John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said:

“The decision to revamp the missile defense plan in Europe is based on technological reality rather than rigid ideology. The Obama administration’s proposal is a better choice for U.S. And European security.”

The technological reality is that Iran does not possess the intermediate or intercontinental missiles that the Bush plan would have defended against. However, it is argued that they would not have capabilities for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear capabilities until 2015.

It is no secret that Iran is pursuing nuclear studies. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to press the issue that it is for the sole purpose of providing nuclear energy, and not for nuclear arms. But, according to a secret report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran does have the ability for a nuclear weapon and have been working on a missile system capable of carrying it.

This decision comes before a summit next week where Obama will be meeting with Medvedev, and weeks before Obama sits down with Ahmadinejad.

European Missile Defense System Shelved by Obama

September 17, 2009 by Daniel

Departmentt of Defense discusses decision of European missile defense system. Photo by Reuters.

President Barack Obama, along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced today that the longtime debated missile defense system would not be continued. The missile defense system would have been built in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The decision brought immediate criticism from Republicans. Ohio Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader said, “Scrapping the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more then empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe. It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world, while taking one of the most important defenses against Iran off the table.”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle commented saying:

“Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia.

“This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe. The message the administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views ‘re-setting’ relations with Russia more important.”

The Obama administration states that Russia was not the reason for scrapping the missile defense system, but that it was new intelligence about Iran and its short and middle range missiles with a lack of intercontinental ballistic capabilities.

In a secret report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it states that Iran has “sufficient information” and ability to make and deliver a nuclear weapon along with the development of a long range missile system.

The Russian government views the decision by Obama as “a victory for common sense.” Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russia’s Parliament, also went on to state “It another positive signal that we have received from Washington that makes the general climate very positive.”

Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev said, “We appreciate the responsible attitude of the President of the United States to implement our agreements. I am ready to continue the dialogue.”

While this missile defense system has been shelved by the Obama administration, it does not mean the area will be left without. The Department of Defense has developed a four-phased plan that would shield the area.

Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

Obama went on to say, “Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program. Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve.”

Transcript of President Obama’s Remarks

White House Fact Sheet on the “Phased, Adaptive Approach”

Afghanistan The Next Vietnam

September 7, 2009 by Daniel

The conflict in Afghanistan has proven more difficult to fight recently, even with an increase of American troops. Which has been a cause for conflict among some. For others, they are left wondering whether or not we learned from history, or if we are permitting it to repeat itself.

It is well known that President Barack Obama was in total opposition of the troop surge in Iraq, as well as opposing the republican lead war. Most would agree that it was a war fought along political party lines. Most democrats were against the war in Iraq while republicans were supportive. There is no secret that party officials oppose the other side when it comes to war, unless they are the one leading the effort.

In Vietnam, America was lead to war by a democratic president with opposition coming from the republican party. By the time things began taking a turn for the worst, a republican had taken office and the streets were filled with protesters. They protested everything from the amount of troops that were dying to that it was an unnecessary war.

Either way you look at it, the arguments made a point. There was a large amount of casualties, and it did seem that it was an unnecessary war. Unnecessary in the fact that there seemed to be no true plan. The war wasn’t fought with a clear idea as to what the outcome would be. For many, this rings so true today with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

With things taking course in Afghanistan, it seems that the Vietnam effect is in true form. It also seems that some history seems to be repeating itself along party lines. A war started by a republican administration, and taken over by a democratic administration has proven to be a challenge. In the start, it was obvious there was opposition with entering Afghanistan. However, things changed once the Obama Administration took charge. With a heavy focus on a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq, there was no sign that there would be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. Since the current administration took over, troop levels have doubled in size and there has been an influx of casualties.

The Vietnam effect doesn’t stop there. As in the past, the administration has no real objective. There has been no real objective other than to get the elusive Osama bin Laden. Is the objective to place a centralized government into operation? If so, then the effort is useless. History has shown that the Afghan people reject this proposal. They have never had a centralized government like what is practiced in America, and it appears as though they never will.

In the ’80’s, Russia made a serious attempt to change the way Afghanistan runs itself. As then, things are proving to be more difficult than expected. However, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian leader, was accepting to the fact that they would ultimately not win the engagement. Something the Obama administration seems unwilling to accept, defeat.

Gorbachev, and his administration, saw the course and withdrew his troops from a decade of fighting. American troops have been in the region for almost the same time, however they will soon see an infusion of more troops. As in Vietnam, when things seemed against America, efforts were increased. Only to later be withdrawn in haste.

Vietnam was a heavy burden on America that caused a huge political divide. The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be taking the same course. Facing a political divide, and a huge deficit, the war is taking a turn for the worse. Public opinion is not as divided, but the majority is now against the effort. Deficits amount on an already bankrupt nation. Troop levels are on the rise, as well as casualties.

The Obama administration is not willing to accept defeat, at any level. Things could only get worse before they get better. With the majority of the people against the war, and unfavorable poll numbers toward President Obama, many are left questioning what the administration will do next.