An expensive solution to an imaginary threat.

It was a wonderful week for the military-industrial complex.

On Tuesday, the United States signed an agreement with the Czech Republic that will see the radar component of an anti-ballistic missile network station stationed south of Prague. With American spending on missile defence set to dwarf most countries' military budgets, the profits to be made are massive. But weapons makers can't bank on them yet.

Legions of experts think the American plan -- particularly the European "missile shield" -- is a mad waste of money. The technology is dubious. The strategic value is even more questionable.

"The United States is in the midst of one of the largest military buildups in history," wrote Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, in the May issue of Foreign Policy. "And it is against a threat that is disappearing -- fast."

Under George W. Bush's plan, the U.S. "would spend more than $60 billion on missile defence in the next six years, an unprecedented sum, even for the Pentagon," Cirincione wrote. And it would do this despite the fact that "there are far fewer missiles, missile programs, and hostile states with missiles aimed at the United States and its armed forces than there were 20 years ago. ... Most of the 28 countries that have any ballistic missiles at all have only short-range Scud missiles -- which travel less than 300 miles and are growing older and less reliable each day. Even the number of countries trying to develop ballistic missiles is falling."

The agreement with the Czechs is just the latest of many steps needed to make Bush's plan a reality. Poland is negotiating hard for the right to base missiles on its territory. And Russia is livid: The Russian government reacted to the announcement Tuesday with yet another threat of unspecified military action if the plan goes ahead.

All this explains U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's defensive tone at the Prague signing ceremony. "Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat," she insisted.
[Top]

The very next day, Iran trundled out some missiles and blasted them hither and yon. The timing was so sweet it's tempting to think Karl Rove orchestrated the whole thing.

But it was just Iran being Iran. Crude bluster is a specialty. So is exaggeration of Iranian prowess.

And for that, a great many people in Washington must be grateful. "We will defend our interests and defend our allies," Condoleezza Rice bravely declared in response to the launches. One imagines she had to suppress a smile.

Thanks to Iran's idiotic stunt -- crudely photoshopping a picture of the launch was not the dumbest thing about it -- the whole focus of attention shifted from the Americans and the wisdom of the European missile shield to the Iranians and their weapons.

And so, once again, the Americans dodged the most basic questions. Such as:

Why is the administration so determined to spend billions of American dollars defending Europe from rogue missiles? Is it sheer generosity? Is it foreign aid for the developed world? Sacks of flour for Sudan, missile shield for Europe ... that sort of thing?

More importantly, why is this even remotely necessary? Let's make the huge assumption that Iran or some other wild card will develop missiles that can hit Europe. Let's further assume they actually have an interest in flattening Berlin. Would they?

While most European Union members have let their militaries atrophy, they are, combined, still large and technologically sophisticated. Europe also has two nuclear arsenals. On top of this, most European countries are members of NATO and, by the treaty's terms, an attack on one is an attack on all.
[Top]

So why are Europeans supposed to worry about Iran launching a missile or two their way? Iranian officials who survived the retaliatory bombardment would find themselves on trial in The Hague. Which is a bit of a deterrent, one would think.

And what about the cost? Assuming there is some benefit, is it worth it? Not even close. There is a long, long list of alternative uses for that money that would do vastly more good.

But money aside -- and it's American money so the American government can spend it foolishly if it wishes -- there is the strategic cost. Vladimir Putin has warned of "a new Cold War." That's hyperbole, but there is a real concern here. The placement of American military installations in what was so recently Russia's front yard will inevitably damage relations between the old foes and assurances that the system isn't a threat to Russia will make little difference. This is a matter of history, pride and psychology far more than cold calculation.

At a time when Russia's importance to the West is on the rise, why do this if it's not absolutely necessary?

I've never seen a decent explanation. The experts I've spoken to say that's because there isn't one.

In some very powerful circles, missile defence is dogma. It is the solution. No matter how the world changes, it is always the solution.

It is also a cash cow -- which helps to explain why this very bad idea will not die, and why this was a very good week for the military-industrial complex.

You can contact Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Back to Columns

Home

Copyright © 2005  Dan Gardner
Website Design & Management by:  GRA Web Site Design Ottawa