The Friedman Catch-22
Thomas Friedman should actually read the ABM treaty that he considers so important.

July 24, 2001 4:25 p.m.

homas Friedman opposes the Bush administration's rush to build a missile defense and rip up the ABM Treaty, because, among other things, the administration hasn't yet proved that "missile defense works under battlefield conditions."

This is an interesting formulation. It used to be that critics simply asserted that it was impossible to hit a "bullet with a bullet" or have an interceptor distinguish between a warhead and a decoy. But the recent missile-defense test has blown away both of these idle assertions. So, now Friedman and others will essentially complain that a system hasn't yet shot down a North Korean missile in the midst of a crisis (i.e., "battlefield conditions").

It will be impossible ever to do that, of course, without lots of testing. And this is the point that demonstrates either Friedman's ignorance of the ABM treaty or his willful neglect of its provisions to score a few anti-Bush points.

Friedman, in his column today, attributes the Bush administration's eagerness to dump the ABM treaty to an unthinking theological hostility to arms control. Then, in almost the same breath, he says that a necessary condition of going forward with a defense must be demonstrating that a system can work in real-world conditions.

Maybe Friedman doesn't realize this (in which case he should actually read the ABM treaty he considers so important), but the treaty makes impossible exactly the sort of testing he is insisting on — so maybe the Bushies' skepticism about the treaty isn't so outrageously irrational after all.

The administration wants to build a test bed in Alaska so testing can proceed with more realistic scenarios, with targets coming towards the United States and multiple radars involved in tracking them. This would represent an important departure in the sophistication of the tests, which heretofore have been limited to White Sands, N.M., and a small island in the Pacific, in keeping with the ABM treaty.

The planned test bed in Alaska may well violate the treaty, because it can also serve as an operational base for a real system. So, does Friedman want the fancier testing or the ABM treaty?

The administration plans for the fall a missile-defense test that includes the AEGIS system that could provide a "boost-phase" defense. But since AEGIS wasn't originally designed for long-range missile defense the ABM treaty makes testing it in such a capacity off-limits. The treaty, then, would ban this test. The same applies to a test planned for February that would involve the integration of a variety of radar and defense systems.

Again, does Friedman want the fancier testing or the ABM treaty?

He doesn't have to answer, since his job is just to throw as many criticisms at missile defense as possible. But the administration, since it is serious about trying to build a defense, has to address this dilemma sooner rather than later, which is why it talks of dumping the ABM treaty in a matter of months, not years. Theology has nothing to do it.

That Vladimir Putin understands the administration's resolve is a reason why he seems willing to talk about changes to the treaty. Putin is really the linchpin to opposition to missile defense. It is his (utterly unbelievable) threat to launch a new arms race that gives the Europeans and Democrats like Joe Biden and Carl Levin the ammunition to oppose Bush's plans.

But now that Putin thinks the administration is serious, he might be calculating that it is better for him to try to wring some concessions from Bush (or at least appear to do so) rather than just watch him go ahead with missile defense anyway.

Let's hope that, with or without Putin, the treaty ends up in the dustbin — so the tests that Thomas Friedman so fervently wants can actually happen.