- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Missile defense is needed

Congress must fully support the proposal of placing a missile interceptor site in Europe. The United States, with over 90,000 U.S. troops deployed in Europe, and our allies currently do not have a robust defense against Tehran’s probably upgraded long-range ballistic missiles which can now reach most of Europe.

In April, Iran’s Deputy Interior Minister Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said: “No place is safe for America since we have long-range missiles. Iran is capable of firing tens of thousands of missiles against U.S. interests on a daily basis. With its long-range missiles, Iran can also threaten Israel which backs the U.S.” It is widely believed that Iran could have the capability to launch missiles that could reach the continental United States by 2015.

To defend against this threat the president has proposed that a third missile defense site in Europe be deployed in the Czech Republic and Poland. America is currently in negotiations with these countries to reach a final agreement on the nature and scope of such defenses. We have already concluded agreements with England, Greenland and Denmark to upgrade existing radars as part of the missile defense deployed now in Alaska and California against North Korean missile threats.

Both North Korea and Iran have stunned the world community with their missile capabilities. In 1998, North Korea launched a rocket that landed between Japan and Hawaii. If the test had been successful, the North Koreans would have demonstrated an ability to hurl a 200-kilo warhead onto the western United States. The North Koreans have cooperated with the Iranians in building and testing missiles, most recently delivering to the Iranians new technology that extends the range of Tehran’s missiles to slightly over 2,100 miles.

We also know that North Korea has exploded a nuclear device and that Iran is seeking the ability to enrich uranium to produce the nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons. This threat requires that we build a common defense for Europe and the United States against such missile strikes. If we do not, we inevitably doom ourselves to be threatened and coerced by Iran. It could, in fact, result in major policy shifts harmful to U.S. interests and could embolden Iran’s radical leadership to take actions against U.S. allies. Additionally, Iran’s attending control and influence over oil supplies could seriously erode the strength of U.S. economic and national security.

NATO has agreed to the deployment of short- and medium-range missile defenses, including Patriot missile batteries. The work with NATO has been going on since 2002 and was initiated at a summit in Prague, Czech Republic. At the 2006 Riga summit, NATO proposed missile defense architecture of long-range interceptors and sensors as well as theater defenses required to defend against shorter-range threats to NATO.

Despite the aforementioned, some of my colleagues in this Congress intend to seriously limit funding for the roughly $300 million for the Third Site in Europe contained in the Defense authorization budget request submitted to Congress in February. Their ostensible rationale is two-fold: (1) NATO as a whole has not explicitly endorsed the third site deployment; and (2) the Russians object that the deployment will upset the “strategic balance.”

These objections are fallacious and spurious. NATO deployments of all kinds, whether missile defenses, strategic aircraft or tanks, are produced by member countries, sometimes in cooperation with each other, and are then deployed as part of each individual country’s military forces and made available to NATO. With the exception of Advanced Warming Aircraft and some cargo planes, which have previously been purchased as military units owned by NATO, countries within the alliance do not give other member nations a veto over their security decisions.

Objections from the Russian government can also be soundly put to rest. The United States has kept the Russian Federation informed of its plans to deploy the European Interceptor Site, which will be an unarmed, defensive system, and which provides no capability to defend against the Russian Federation’s strategic offensive force. The interceptors carry no explosive warhead and rely solely on kinetic energy to intercept and destroy on impact an incoming warhead. The United States and NATO have also proposed to the Russian government an entire series of cooperative measures that could be jointly pursued in the area of missile defenses, including concepts, operations, training, exercises and joint deployments, as well as onsite inspections of the missile defense deployment.

In short, the third site funding proposals must not be slowed down because some members of Congress do not have the intestinal fortitude to deploy a layered and robust missile defense. The Third Site compliments existing defenses with a necessary layer of defense. It provides protection against nuclear blackmail by the rogue regime in Tehran. It protects our allies and our deployed military forces overseas. It adds to our security and the security of our allies. It is the duty of this Congress to fully fund the missile defense budget in general and specifically as it relates to the Third Site.


Strategic Forces Subcommittee

House Armed Services Committee


Clamp down, Israel

Thank you for highlighting the tremendous quantities of weapons that terrorists have brought into Gaza since Israel withdrew, typically with the passive cooperation of Egypt (“Olmert and jihadist threats,” Editorial, Monday). I would add that the Palestinian Authority has not simply “permitted” this smuggling. Both of the terrorist organizations that have controlled the PA since the Gaza withdrawal — Fatah and Hamas — have been primary smugglers. Both have used the lack of Israeli-induced order in Gaza to sow anarchy, internal strife and, of course, regular attacks on Israel.

Israel must stop giving these people land and autonomy. The failed appeasement of the past 14 years has brought only bloodshed to Israel and has mired the Arabs in a quagmire of PA-sponsored incitement, terrorism, anarchy and infighting.


Flushing, N.Y.

Rhetoric and reality

I suspect James Jay Carafano is correct when he says of a Democratic effort to ban the use of the term “the long war” with respect to our effort in Iraq: “Simply changing words won’t change the war’s nature” (“War of words,” Commentary, Saturday). But because many congressional Democrats dispute this, I propose a test.

Let’s ban the use of the term and substitute the phrase “Islamist-inspired imbroglio.” Then let’s advertise this change widely: public service announcements on radio and TV, billboards, glossy print spots, even small planes trailing the phrase behind them.

Then let’s sit back, put our feet up in the summer sun and watch the suicide bombers retreat.

What? You doubt the efficacy of this approach? Just be advised that many Democrats think it is the way to go. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and secure?



Grab the stick, step up to the plate

The column “The new war on terror” (Commentary, Monday) by Daniel Gallington hit the nail right on the head but didn’t quite drive it home. Our enemies know that all they have to do is wait us out to win. Now they throw Hiroshima and Nagasaki threats at us. Maybe it’s time to show them what those cities really were like. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Well, we have the big stick, but do we have the guts to use it?

Let’s set timetables to withdraw from Iraq. Then we should set another timetable for the Iraqis to establish a stable government without terrorist control or risk an “asymmetric response” — in other words, a nuclear attack. If it comes to this, the military should be given full authority over means, place and time. Wars are not pleasant. The winners usually are those who destroy the most and kill the most people. September 11 was the first strike; now it’s our time to step up to the plate and win this war.



Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide