General George S. Patton summed up the American psyche quite well when he wrote, "After each of our wars, there has always been a great hue and cry to the effect that there will be no more wars, that disarmament is the sure road to health, happiness, and peace; and that by removing the fire department, we will remove fires." This is exactly President Obama's plan with regards to foreign policy: Remove the fire department in the hopes that it will remove the fires. Unfortunately, fires don't stop occurring just because there is no one to combat them.
Take missile defense for example. The Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center released a report this summer saying Iran could produce a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States by 2015. By this time, Iran would presumably have figured out how to mount a nuclear warhead on this missile, meaning that Iran could drop a nuclear bomb on the United States in about five years. Leaving aside the question of whether Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology, I seriously doubt anyone reading this would want the United States to be vulnerable to an Iranian nuclear attack.
How do we combat this problem? The answer is simple: missile defense. In fact, missile defense tests have been extremely successful. In U.S. missile defense testing history, every test but one was a complete success (and in the exception the rate of success was 90 percent). These include tests of ground-based, sea-based and air-based interceptors beginning with the United States' decision to deploy missile defenses in 2002. With such a high rate of success, it is mind-boggling that the president would not pursue a more comprehensive, layered missile-defense system.
However, rather than pursuing such a system, the president decided to scrap plans to put 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic, thereby not only snubbing our allies and reneging on a promise, but also placing the United States and our forces around the world in greater danger. Rather than pursuing the previously agreed upon setup, President Obama proposed a new phased, adaptive approach by making use of sea-based and Standard Missile-3 technology to protect against what the administration perceives is the more potent threat of short-range rather than long-range missiles.
But, as previously demonstrated, the idea that short-range missiles are the more immediate threat is fatally flawed. Certainly the danger from short-range missiles is great, but we cannot discount the threat of long-range missiles in the near future, nor should we have to. Iran is pursuing its missile capabilities holistically, and we should pursue our defenses in a similar manner. Rather than scrapping the plan to place interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic that would be able to intercept long-range ballistic missiles and protect our troops, our homeland and our allies, we should be pursuing a strategy in accordance with the threat. We should deploy missile defenses against short-range missiles, but we also need to think about the bigger picture. Additionally, in order to request, receive and put into action the funding required to deploy missile defenses against long-range missiles, we need to start now. If we wait until Iran has perfected its long-range capability, it will be too late to deploy defenses against it.
We cannot remain unprepared for the threats that face us. That is dangerously naïve. Rather than relying solely on diplomacy and neglecting to fund the capabilities necessary to protect us in case diplomacy fails, we should prepare ourselves. As Patton went on to say, "I do not say that there will be no more wars; I devoutly hope that there will not, but I do say that the chances of avoiding future wars will be greatly enhanced if we are ready."
In an effort to reach a greater appreciation of the looming threat, the documentary "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age" will be screened tonight at 9 p.m. in Barnum 104. Hopefully, by furthering our understanding of the ongoing danger, we can better prepare ourselves to meet it.
--
Emily Rector is a senior majoring in international relations. Eric Sullivan is a second-year graduate student pursuing a master's degree in international business at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy.
