DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama Scraps Missile Defense System to Appease Russia

Neville Chamberlain would be proud. \


Pentagon: ‘Major adjustment’ to missile plan
Moscow had urged Obama to scrap shield based in former Soviet bloc states
msnbc.com news services
updated 7:44 a.m. ET, Thurs., Sept . 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will make a “major adjustment” to a European missile defense plan that has been a major irritant in relations with Russia, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said early Thursday.

An unnamed U.S. defense official told Reuters that the change will include a move away from the large, fixed-based radar sites in Poland and the Czech Republic that had been promoted by the administration of George W. Bush.

The earlier proposal aimed to defend the United States and its European allies against a possible missile attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. In all, 10 interceptor rockets were to have been stationed in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic.

A formal announcement on the shield was expected later Thursday.

‘Pulling out’
Czech Premier Jan Fischer told reporters that Obama phoned him overnight to say that "his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory."

"The same happened with Poland. Poland was informed in the same way about this intention," Fischer said.

He said Obama assured him that the "strategic cooperation" between the Czech Republic and the United States would continue, and that Washington considers the Czechs among its closest allies.

In Poland, officials declined to confirm Fischer's remarks, saying they were waiting for a formal announcement from Washington.

Russia had been livid over the prospect of having U.S. interceptor rockets in countries so close to its territory, and the Obama administration has sought to improve strained ties with the Kremlin.

"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought (out) and systematic one," Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, told reporters Thursday. "It reflects understanding that any security measure can't be built entirely on the basis of one nation."

"Now we can talk about restoration of (the) strategic partnership between Russia and the United States," Kosachev added.

Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science's Center for International Security, told a Moscow radio station on Thursday that the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran.

"The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile-defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran," he said.

Aggressor
Defense Secretary Robert Gates scheduled a news conference Thursday with a top military leader, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who has been a point man on the technical challenge of arraying missiles and interceptors to defend against long-range missiles that an aggressor such as Iran might lob at the United States or its allies. Two military officials, speaking to The AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the news conference would concern the missile defense plans.

Obama took office undecided about whether to continue to press for the European system and said he would study it. His administration never sounded enthusiastic about the plan, and European allies have been preparing for an announcement that the White House would not complete the shield as designed.

The decision comes as the Obama administration has been seeking closer ties with Moscow and as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is preparing to visit the United States next week for the U.N. General Assembly and the Group of 20 nations economic summit.

The plan for a European shield was a darling of the Bush administration, which reached deals to install interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic — eastern European nations at Russia's doorstep and once under Soviet sway.

Moscow has argued that the system would undermine the nuclear deterrent of its vast arsenal.


Medvedev has praised Obama for reviewing the plans, though the U.S. administration has maintained the Bush administration's argument that the European missile defense plans are aimed at countering a threat from Iran and pose no threat to Russia.

The administration has given few clues on how it intends to handle European missile defense. Officials have said the review would consider alternative plans to those involving Poland and the Czech Republic.



At an Army missile defense conference last month, Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that the U.S. may have underestimated how long it would take Iran to develop long-range missiles. That was seen as a clue that the administration might be backing away from the European plan as devised.

Military officials at the conference discussed possible alternatives for European missile defense, including using shorter-range interceptors from other locations closer to Iran.

Cartwright also has discussed ways the United States might join forces with other nations to watch and protect against Iranian missiles. Using multiple sensors, including some in the Persian Gulf region, theoretically could provide at least a partial shield for Eastern Europe without basing a full radar and interceptor system so close to Russia.

It was unclear Wednesday whether the administration would preserve any of the planned physical emplacements for the European system.


The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32889934/ns/politics-white_house/

Many who have debated me over the years knows where I stand politically but the sheild was not a great idea. Both the Polish and Czech Governments have said they are relieved. It doesn't sound like they really wanted to do it in the first place.

It might have more to do with us being in the economic toilet than it does appeasing Russia. One less thing for China to repossess.

We can only hope that Obama negotiated some terms with the Russians behind close doors ( smart ) .. Iran is going to cause a huge problem ( Israel ) if we can't get the Soviets to lean on them ..

One more thing Gift, I don't have an issue with having a sheild. But I don't think we needed in Poland and Czech. It was causing a major issue with like it or not another world superpower that has nuclear weapons.

And like water says, like it or not we need the Russians help with Iran. We can't try to handle with out their help and Russia being on our side.

Yeah that's it...let's wait till the dangerous missiles are over our skies to try and shoot them down instead of over the skies of the people who shot them. Thats what those systems were designed to do...hit the missiles while in the first 2 stages and still over the enemies lands....If Iran fires off a missile...you can't exactly do that from the US...but you can from Poland.....well not anymore....

Excel,

Because they didn't want our military presence so close to them. It had nothing to do with us trying to stop a Russian Missile attack. They can shoot hundreds of missils at a time. How would a missil sheild stop that? It can't.

Also, Russia would not shoot missiles over Europe to get to us they would shoot them over the pacific ocean and a missile defense in Poland and Czech wont stop those.


Pete,

There were other places to put a missile sheild in Europe that would still meet those requirements.

But how many of those places were opening their arms to us like the Poles and Czech's???? How feasible was it financially to go to those places....

I mean....sure it is humanly possible that I can build a house in the Salt mines under Lake Erie too....But #1 Would they let me and #2 how financially feasible would it actually be????

Pete,

Your comments are pretty laughable. You are putting a lot of effort into defending a system that will cost large amounts of money and does not have a very succesful track record.

Also, fine put a sheild in Poland and Czech Republic. What do you do when a country like Iran shoots a missile east away from our sheild. You think our missiles are going to not only make up the distance but also shoot them down accuratly?

Next, like I've already said no country is actually going to shoot a missile at us because the moment we detect a launch we would have our own and that country would be uninhabitable for the next 100 years.

Finally, it has already been said that Obama has an alternate plan. For starters we will have Aegis ships armed with interceptors. This will allow a missile defense immediatly and have the ability to be relocated.

a bit related...article yesterday...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html

By BRET STEPHENS
Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

—Write to bstephens@wsj.com

First of all this was a shield for EUROPE not the US...so what does Poland care if they shoot away to the East???

Second of all What track record are you even talking about???? This is one of the newest sytems out there...not the gen I Patriot missiles....

Lastly whay haven't you answered the question Excel asked which is why is Russia so upset about a completely DEFENSIVE weapons system???? Yes those same Russians that invaded Georgia over Oil.....

Quote:

---

First of all this was a shield for EUROPE not the US...so what does Poland care if they shoot away to the East???

---

Because your first post said:

"Yeah that's it...let's wait till the dangerous missiles are over our skies to try and shoot them down "

And in the state of our economy I don't think we need to be spending billions of $$ on a missile sheild for EUROPE. Let them pay us for one if they want it.

Quote:

---

Second of all What track record are you even talking about???? This is one of the newest sytems out there...not the gen I Patriot missiles....

---

They still haven't had a many succesfull tests shooting down missiles when they didn't know when and where it was going to be shot down from.

Quote:

---

Lastly whay haven't you answered the question Excel asked which is why is Russia so upset about a completely DEFENSIVE weapons system???? Yes those same Russians that invaded Georgia over Oil.....

---

I did, you must have missed it. What does Georgia have to do with this discusion?

True

Quote:

---

And in the state of our economy I don't think we need to be spending billions of $$ on a missile sheild for EUROPE. Let them pay us for one if they want it.

---

And you don't think they are????? You think we are just giving it to them for free????

Granted as a part of NATO we do spend on this....but we aren't just footing the entire bill nor most of the bill on this....And for what we do pay we do get things back on our investment like improved relations with our NATO allies, money, military and political influence and presence.....

And what does Georgia have to do with it???? I don't know, why don't you ask Poland and the Czech's.....maybe they aren't too comfortable with the unstable Rusaian Bear so close and maybe Iranian missiles aren't the ONLY missiles they are afraid of....

This has EVERYTHING to do with appeasing the Russians and NOTHING to do with costs despite what the politicians are saying....If it were otherwise they would have been giving us lavish numbers about how much we were saving......but they aren't.....

If they want a missile sheild they need to foot the entire bill. But that isn't how it was set up. We were going to be paying billions of dollars for a shield. But the fact is we are in a war in Iraq and Afganistan and unless we want to invade Iran next we need Russia's help with dealing with them.

Russia didn't wan our military presence in Poland and Czech. It was a sticking point and it caused tension. Obama is already working on alternative programs. They are deploying Ageis ships in the area already. We are still trying to protect our NATO allies. Why is this missile defense system that is still in the blueprint phase even an issue at all. Who is attacking Poland? Do you think the USSR is on it's way back??? I don't so maybe that's why we disagree on this issue.

Quote:

---

Who is attacking Poland?

---

Throughout history, just about everyone in their region. You can't blame them for not wanting to let their guard down.

They once made a deal with the Russians, the results of which are buried in the Katyn forest.

Well they are still a part of NATO and:

"The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So again: Who is attacking Poland?

NATO...Now there's an organization with some teeth!

I'm sure Poland feels all warm n fuzzy knowing NATO would squirm to their defense.

We all know what happened when all of the allies came to their defense in the last big war. Yep, they can rest easy.

But a missile defense sheild is going to save them???? I'm missing your guys point in the argument!

Please tell me how this Missile Sheild is such a great idea that we should invest billions of dollars building it?

Please tell me who in 2009 and on is going to be shooting missiles into Europe??

The thing everyone should be worried about is someone getting thier hands on a nuke and using it as a dirty bomb. And last time I checked a missile sheild won't protect against that.

I'm just trying to explain Poland's point. My question is, why does Russia have their panties in such a knot over this defense system? If Canada were to build one on Montana's border, we would laugh our asses off.

Quote:

---

Well developing this system would have a impact on the economy creating more jobs, development of new computer systems, software, machinery etc. This would benefit much of the manufacturing industry as does most of the Dept. of Defense projects. Plus once implemented would protect us and other innocent people from some lunatic wanting to wreak havoc by killing innocent people, and also possibly deter other countries from further developing missles, since we could easily plink them out of the sky. This is just one of the many signs that Obama could care less about innocent peoples safety and the status of America's Economy, instead he'd rather spend taxpayer dollars on another bailout thats the equivalent to pissing in the ocean to raise the tide. just my 2 cents.

---

Holy freaking hell. What in the world are you talking about? You think building two missile defense sheilds in Europe will help our economy??? Really??? I hope you realize this......crack kills! So put it down.

Please explain how building a Missile Defense sheild for Europe was going to make the United States safer??? And please stop with the non-sense retoric that it would deter others from getting missiles because it won't. The only way we are going to get Iran from developing a Nuke is with the help of Russia. Russia didn't want United States Missile defense system so close to thier boarders. It's all politics and if we want thier help we have to play ball. Unless you are telling me you just want to attack Iran. But then we would disagree on that and then we would need to make a different discussion to talk about that.

Let me flip this, in a similar manner to the Cuban Missile Crisis imagine in 2009 Russia plans on building a Missile Defense system in Cuba and Venezuala? Do you think we would say no problem?? Of coarse we would not. Because even though they are a Missile DEFENSE they are still missiles and attaching a warhead can easily turn them into and offensive weapon.

The biggest fear anyone should have is a terrorist organization getting thier hands on a Nuke and they use it as a dirty bomb. The idea a rouge nation like Iran or North Korea shooting Nukes at the US or any of our allies is shear lunacy and hollywood movie esq. They won't because they would be destroyed by us and our allies.

And I am so glad you brought up Obama spending because that is the exact reason I don't want the sheild built. We were going to spend billions on it. We have already wasted billions on bail outs and cash for clunkers, Bush's bailout, Bush's first 6 years with republican controlled congres where they spent, spent, spent, Obama's first year where with dem controll where they looked at the republican spending and multiplied it by ten, and a soon to be government controlled healthcare that will waste billions.

I just can't see how anyone can complaine about Obama's spending but then try and say we need to waste billions on a missile sheild that is unnessesary and are mad because Obama said no. Just don't get it.

I applaud Obama for not wasting money on this. Now if he will only listen to me on the rest of his wastfull spending............

Gift...clicking on your link..


[url= http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32889934/ns/politics-white_house/ ]web page[/url]


...the following story comes up...



Obama scraps Bush-era Europe missile shield


msnbc.com news services

updated 7:14 p.m. ET, Thurs., Sept . 17, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Thursday scrapped the Bush-era plan for a missile shield to defend Eastern Europe, prompting some Republicans to immediately accuse the White House of going soft.

Obama promised a redesigned defensive system, saying it would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles. The Bush-era plan had complicated ties with Russia, which objected to where the shield installations would be built.

Anticipating criticism from the right that he was weakening America's security, Obama said repeatedly that this decision would provide more — not less — protection.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland."

Obama said the decision had been made based on "unanimous recommendations" by his national security team, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

McCain: 'Seriously misguided'
Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate who lost to Obama in 2008, blasted the move as "seriously misguided" and said it would fray ties with Eastern European nations that "are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism."

John Bolton, a leading hawk during the Bush administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said it was "just unambiguously bad decision. Russia and Iran are the big winners. I just think it's a bad day for American national security."

House Minority Leader John Boehner echoed those views. "Scrapping the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more than empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe,” he said in a statement. "It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world, while taking one of most important defenses against Iran off the table."

The Bush-era system was to have been built in the Czech Republic and Poland. Obama phoned Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer on Wednesday night and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Thursday to alert them of his decision.

Obama said the plan was scrapped in part because, after a review, the United States has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary. New technology also has arisen that military advisers decided could be deployed sooner and more effectively, he said.

‘Updated intelligence assessment’
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to abandon the plan came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat posed by Iran.

Video

Gates on shift
Sept. 17: Defense Secretary Robert Gates discusses the rationale for a new shield system.
msnbc tv


Gates said intelligence experts concluded the short- and medium-range missiles were "developing more rapidly than previously projected" in Iran.

The New York Times, quoting people familiar with the matter, reported that the revised plan would call for the deployment of smaller SM-3 missiles, initially aboard ships and later likely in Turkey or southern Europe.

"Our review has been driven by an updated intelligence assessment of Iran's missile programs and new advances in our missile defense capabilities and technologies," The Times quoted an administration official saying on condition of anonymity.

The Times reported that recent intelligence indicated that Iran was moving quickly toward developing short- and medium-range missiles. The reconfigured U.S. defense system would be calibrated more specifically toward meeting that threat by stationing interceptor missiles closer to Iran, administration officials told The Times.

OBama said the United States will continue to work cooperatively with what he called "our close friends and allies" — the Czech Republic and Poland, which had agreed to host the Bush-planned shield at considerable cost in public opinion and their relations with Russia.

He also made a reference to Russia and its long and heated objections to the shield. "Its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded," Obama said.

Obama faced the dilemma of either setting back the gradual progress toward repairing relations with Russia or disappointing two key NATO allies, the Czech Republic and Poland, that agreed to host components of the planned system.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the U.S. decision "a positive step."

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, said that the decision "reflects understanding that any security measure can't be built entirely on the basis of one nation."

Ellen Tauscher, a U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, briefed Czech officials in Prague and Polish officials in Warsaw on Thursday about Obama's decision.

"This would confirm that Central Europe is not in the center of the Obama administration's interest," said Jaroslaw Gowin, lawmaker for Poland's ruling Civic Platform party. "But maybe the U.S. will offer us an alternative."

Tusk, the Polish premier, said Obama assured him in a phone call Thursday that U.S. plans to alter the missile defense project will not hurt Poland's security.

The decision to scrap the plan could have future consequences for U.S. relations with the region.

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic's conservative Civic Democratic Party, which supported the missile defense plan.

Attempt to shift Russian relations
The Obama administration has been seeking closer ties with Moscow. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is preparing to visit the United States next week for the U.N. General Assembly and the Group of 20 nations economic summit.

The plan for a European shield was a darling of the Bush administration, which reached deals to install 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic — eastern European nations at Russia's doorstep and once under Soviet sway.

Moscow has argued that the system would undermine the nuclear deterrent of its vast arsenal.

Medvedev has praised Obama for reviewing the plans, though the current American administration has maintained its predecessor’s argument that the European missile defense plans are aimed at countering a threat from Iran and pose no threat to Russia.

At an Army missile defense conference last month, military officials discussed possible alternatives for European missile defense, including using shorter-range interceptors from other locations closer to Iran.

U.S. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who has been a point man on the technical challenge of arraying missiles and interceptors to defend against long-range missiles, has discussed ways the United States might join forces with other nations to watch and protect against Iranian missiles. Using multiple sensors, including some in the Persian Gulf region, theoretically could provide at least a partial shield for Eastern Europe without basing a full radar and interceptor system so close to Russia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gift...I have no idea where your story came from...but its not what comes up when I click on your link.

Concerning the story above and comments by some...

I'm not shocked that Bush Neocons are upset with Obama for canceling the Eastern Europe Star Wars Missile Plan?

I would not be surprised if some Bush/Cheney allies were waiting to be awarded "no bid contracts" connected to development and building of Eastern European Star Wars Missile Plan?

Obama just can't win...rwers complain that Obama is not addressing the government spending, but when Obama comes up with a missile system that is "cheaper, quicker and more effective" than the one proposed by the Bush administration, rwers complain about that too.


Also, it's not like Obama came to this conclusion on his own...from the article...

..."Obama said the decision had been made based on "unanimous recommendations" by his national security team, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

I've read that "billions" of taxpayer dollars are going to be saved with this move. This project was likely included in Bush's last defense funding bill. We need to remember, the money to pay for the Afghan War and the Iraqi War...is being borrowed from China. I would not be shocked if this project was included as part of the funding for the wars.

Sorry, but I don't see the downside to this move.