 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
Version |
|
May
15, 2002 8:45 a.m. |
|
ext
week, President Bush will do something the arms-control cultists said
would be impossible in a world without an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty:
He will sign a pact with Russia that reduces both countries' nuclear arsenals.
Rather than launching a deadly new arms race, the end of the ABM Treaty
— which comes next month, when the United States is formally released
from all obligations to it — appears to be entirely compatible with
the peaceful coexistence of nations.
This hasn't stopped Senate Democrats from attacking the Bush administration's plans for a missile-defense system. For the second year in a row, they have slashed funding for weapons systems meant to defend the United States and its allies from ballistic-missile attack. Last year, Bush's proposed budget asked for $8.3 billion for missile defense, but Congress axed $500 million. This year, Bush came back with a request simply for last year's amount, and last week the emboldened liberals on Carl Levin's armed services committee carved out another $900 million, for a total appropriation of $6.8 billion — a full 18 percent less than Bush had wanted for 2002. The cuts affect virtually every element of missile defense, including crucial system-integration spending.
Some liberals mask their opposition to missile defense by saying what they really oppose is the Bush administration's particular vision of it. They would prefer a missile-defense system that focuses on boost-phase intercepts — in other words, a forward-deployed system that tries to destroy enemy missiles shortly after takeoff, when they are slow and hot (rather than fast and cold, as they are in final descent).
There is something to this argument — and the advocates of missile defense ultimately would like to see a robust system in place that has boost-phase capabilities, as well as the ability to counter threats in their mid-course and terminal phases. Yet boost-phase ABM technology is not as developed as mid-course ABM technology, and there's the additional problem of having to base these weapons close to enemy launch sites. This is all worth doing, but the time horizon for it is further off than the modest system Bush proposes to have working in Alaska by the fall of 2004.
Among their many missile-defense cuts, however, the Senate Democrats have removed $250 million from boost-phase programs — putting the lie to their claims of theoretical support for missile defense. Boost-phase defense has been a rhetorical last refuge for many of them, but they don't hold it so dear that they're actually willing to pay for it.
Their attacks on missile defense didn't receive as much press attention as they deserve because 1) they're only a small part of a mammoth national-security package worth close to $400 billion, 2) they weren't judged as newsworthy as a parallel decision to decide the fate of the Crusader program after hearing testimony from Donald Rumsfeld later this week, and 3) Republicans did not sufficiently politicize the fight.
Every Democrat on the committee voted to approve the bill, plus four Republicans: Jim Bunning, Susan Collins, John McCain, and Strom Thurmond. If the GOP wants to be the party of missile defense, it will have to do better than this. The White House must be willing to play a leadership role, too; a $900 million cut is a pittance when it comes to Beltway spending, and Senate Democrats are not in a position to hold up a national-security bill over their small-minded hatred of missile defense.
Bush, for his part, has never been in a better position to make an aggressive case for missile defense. The public favored it before September 11, and now we've all witnessed our country's terrible vulnerability to unexpected threats. Bush's new pact with Russia also demonstrates a sensible commitment to peace.
It would seem that the White House still can get all it wants for missile defense — but only if it's willing to scramble and launch a counterattack.