|
 ast
summer, Bush administration officials began noting that the Pentagon's
programs to develop and test systems to defend U.S. citizens against
ballistic-missile attack would soon "bump up" against
ABM Treaty constraints — and then, as National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice told Washington Times editors on August
1, the president had pledged that "since we don't plan to violate
the Treaty that would mean we would have to withdraw."
Well, we're
indisputably now at that point.
Defense Secretary
Don Rumsfeld announced last Thursday that, because of treaty constraints,
the Navy would not be able to use its existing Aegis sea-based radar
to track upcoming tests of strategic missiles.
There is more
to this development than first meets the eye.
Developing
sea-based defenses was, I believe, the most important initiative
of my watch as director of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
during the first Bush administration. It was obvious then (and it
still is) that the Navy's existing Aegis system can be rapidly and
relatively inexpensively improved to provide wide-area defenses
for our overseas troops, friends, and allies — and also for
Americans at home.
There's only
one significant problem — and it is a major one. Article 5
of the ABM Treaty bans development, testing, and deployment of sea-based
defenses for America. And Article 6 prohibits testing of sea-based
"theater defenses" against so-called "strategic"
missiles. Sea-based defenses to protect our overseas troops, friends,
and allies are permitted, but those defenses cannot be used to protect
Americans at home — at least under the ABM Treaty.
My plan was
to build an effective wide-area sea-based defense for our overseas
troops, friends, and allies within four years — which is permitted
by the treaty — and then improve it to protect the American
people. I could not imagine that American s would tolerate their
tax dollars being used only to defend others when that system, with
relatively minor system improvements, would also defend them.
The Navy agreed
to start a serious development.
Before leaving
the Pentagon in January 1993, I warned the chief of naval operations,
Admiral Frank Kelso, to be careful in developing a sea-based theater
defense, because the ABM Treaty lawyers would block even its development
and testing if there were any hint that system was intended to protect
Americans at home.
No doubt the
Clinton administration, which was devoted to the ABM Treaty, understood
the inherent capability of such sea-based defenses and effectively
scuttled the program I left to them — which had been fully
funded to provide an initial capability as early as in 1997.
Congress supported
development of sea-based defenses — especially after the 1994
elections — and added funds each subsequent year to push the
system ahead. But, year after year, the Clinton administration delayed
program execution by holding up funds and conducting over a dozen
studies — all of which concluded that sea-based defenses made
sense.
When serious
development was finally undertaken, they "dumbed-down"
the system. As Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch indicated in
1995, the Clinton Navy theater-wide system could not intercept strategic
ballistic missiles and therefore would be consistent with the ABM
Treaty.
What he didn't
choose to elaborate was that they slowed down the defensive interceptor
rocket, did not use the most capable state-of-the-art interceptor
sensors, precluded use of external sensor fire-control data other
than from the co-located Aegis radar, and adopted a firing protocol
that precluded intercept attempts until after the target rockets
engines burn out — so nearby defensive interceptors would be
in a tail chase after a faster strategic rocket and of course could
not catch up.
These are ludicrous
constraints from a technical and military perspective — and
they were well known to the new Bush administration, which —
as yet — has done little to relieve them.
Bear in mind
that the Bunker Hill, the Navy's oldest Aegis Cruiser, tracked
Chinese ballistic missiles launched to intimidate the Taiwanese
during their first democratic presidential election in 1996. The
same software improvements that made tracking possible then, would
have permitted an existing Aegis cruiser to gather useful data in
the upcoming missile-defense tests — except for the treaty.
More important
is that this is a most timid "bump up" against the treaty.
Far more important conflicts with the treaty would be resulting
soon, if they had not already been evident, had the new Bush administration
resurrected Bush I missile-defense programs canceled by the Clinton
administration — and thus moved ahead on an urgent schedule
to develop sea- and space-based defenses as quickly as possible.
For some unexplained
reason the administration has kept these most effective and less
expensive options for global defenses on the backburner while they
have expanded, with relatively minor modifications, the much more
expensive and less effective Clinton ground-based defense plan,
which was designed to fail.
I have testified
to Congress on how treaty constraints had, on my watch and earlier,
cost us time and money and if not removed could one day cost us
lives. Secretary Rumsfeld's announcement last week makes clear the
current Bush administration is continuing this unwise practice.
Hopefully,
President Bush will soon keep the campaign promise he made on May
23, 2000:
At the earliest
possible date, my administration will deploy antiballistic missile
systems, both theater and national, to guard against attack and
blackmail. We will offer Russia amendments to the Anti-Ballistic
Missile [ABM] Treaty — an artifact of the Cold War confrontation.
Both sides know that we live in a different world than in 1972
when the Treaty was signed. If Russia refuses the changes we propose,
we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty,
that we can no longer be party to it. I will have a solemn obligation
to protect the American people and our allies, not to protect
arms control agreements signed almost 30 years ago. Given today's
realities, we can no longer drag our feet on building and deploying
a missile defense system; nor can we allow Cold War arms control
agreements to restrict America's ability to defend itself and
its allies.
The president
should have fulfilled this 18-month-old promise by now. And surely,
after September 11 proved there are people who will happily die
to kill Americans, it is intolerable to continue dumbing down our
defenses because of the ABM Treaty. All adversaries simply are not
deterred by threats of retaliation.
As President
Bush said after meeting with Russian President Putin in Shanghai,
"The events of September 11 make it clearer than ever that
a Cold War treaty that prevents us from defending our people is
outdated and, I believe, dangerous."
Indeed, September
11 has changed everything. No one now argues the benefits of vulnerability
— or that no one would dare attack us for fear that we would
retaliate. Deterrence does not work against terrorists. Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban knew we would find out they was behind September
11 and come after them.
The president
says we are after the terrorists and states that harbor them.
His "coalition" strategy gets in the way of going after
them all at once. But they must be on our target list if we are
to rid the world of terrorism. Does anyone believe that Iraq, for
instance, is not in cahoots with bin Laden? Perhaps Saddam Hussein
provided the Anthrax and/or know-how that has shut down both houses
of Congress and killed innocent Americans. And remember that Saddam
said in 1991 he would have attacked American cities had he the missiles
to reach them. Do we doubt him?
Make no mistake
— many who argue against American defenses, including Russia
and China, are involved in proliferating weapons of mass destruction
and missiles to deliver them.
And as Defense
Secretary Don Rumsfeld told journalists during his recent visit
to Russia, "A weapon of mass destruction can be delivered over
intercontinental range by a ballistic missile that has less than
intercontinental range. . . [One technique] is to put it on a ship,
peel back the cover, use a transporter-erector-launcher, and fire
it from a distance shorter than ICBM range. . . . a rogue state
has done that." He declined to identify which specific country,
but said, "Certainly you would include in that category North
Korea and Iraq and Iran and Libya. . . ."
This threat
exists today. And more threats of longer range are surely coming.
We dare not
continue to tarry. We need to be free of the ABM Treaty now —
and to build the most effective defenses we can, as soon as possible.
The only question at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas should
be whether Russia will join us in building global defenses to protect
Americans and others around the world.
But the ABM
Treaty must go now.
|
