Who Needs Missile Defense? We Do!

After years of putting their heads in the sand, the Clinton Administration recently announced its support for a anti-anti-ballistic missile defense program. In January, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen outlined a bold, new proposal to establish a U.S. missile defense system costing $10.5 billion over six years. But what is more surprising, for the first time since Clinton has occupied the White House, Secretary Cohen affirmed that indeed there is a threat to Americans from ballistic missiles.

Secretary Cohen soon will decide how to begin deployment of a missile defense system, which probably would not be completed until 2005. Cohen promised to proceed with a missile defense system even if it did not conform with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the United States and the now-defunct Soviet Union, which prohibits a missile defense of the territory of the United States. This also is a course reversal for the Administration.

For years, supporters of a U.S. missile defense system have argued that the threat from ballistic missile attack on the U.S. and its territories is a clear and present danger. Advocates have continually pointed out that the ABM Treaty is a barrier to defending Americans that must be overcome. In his January announcement, Secretary Cohen conceded both points. Something the Clinton Administration would not have dreamed of just six months ago.

But, if past is pretense, just because the Administration has publicly stated a policy position, course reversal, or "new enlightened understanding" of a pressing issue, does not necessarily mean that it intends to follow its words. In the foreign policy area specifically, the Clinton Administration has demonstrated time and again its ability to stake out positions on both sides of an issue - appearing to be doing something, where in reality, they are just waiting to see what happens, test the political wind, and chose the course of action that results in the most political gains, not necessarily the best foreign policy.

Thus, it is unclear at the moment whether the Clinton Administration is really prepared to do what is necessary to protect American from missile attack. Indeed, there already are signs that the Administration is back-peddling:

1) Shortly after Cohen's announcement, National Security Council staff person Robert Bell claimed that the White House had not approved Cohen's proposal.
2) The White House has been quick to insist that Secretary Cohen's plan is not Reagan's "Star Wars" (If and when a system is deployed, it is not inconceivable that the Administration will claim intellectual credit for the idea).

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic