Some of the missile-defense anger at Obama is premature. Criticism of the announcement of the retracted offer of land-based missile defense in Eastern Europe should not result in knee-jerk condemnation of Obama, inasmuch as the Bush-appointed secretary of defense, Bob Gates, reversed his own prior position, and now supports the move on tactical grounds, and he is apparently supported by the Joint Chiefs as well, who prefer a more mobile alternative, which we should expect Obama to implement. Or so the administration story goes . . .

But the problem was not necessarily the decision per se — any conservative president, like Obama, could have changed his mind in the face of changing technologies — but the manner in which it was made. Fair or not, given the symbolic anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, given prior arm-twisting to have the Eastern Europeans stick their neck out, given that Obama has earlier expressed interest in cutting defense and weapons programs (rightly or wrongly), and given the fact that Putin assumes concession is considered weakness to be exploited rather magnanimity to be appreciated, the U.S., fairly or unfairly, looks weak in a very volatile and constantly changing part of the world.

If Obama obtained private Russian assurances for help on Iran (unlikely), if the Eastern Europeans privately wanted out (unlikely), if Western Europe has no plans anyway to back NATO in the east if trouble with Russia brews (likely), and if Pentagon officials really did not have confidence in the system (who knows?), then Obama’s decision is more defensible. It is what follows that now counts, and reveals the wisdom or error of the president’s decision, however the disastrous public relations around it.