13 June 2002
"In Self Defense," by Senator Jon Kyl
(Op-ed from Washington Times, Thursday, 06/13/02) (950)
(This byliner by Jon Kyl, Republican Senator from Arizona, first
appeared in The Washington Times June 13 and is in the public domain.
No republication restrictions.)
In Self Defense
Jon Kyl
-- Funding for missile shield must be restored
There is a strange disconnect between recent developments in the
Middle East and here in the U.S. Senate. In early May, Iran - newly
dubbed by the State Department as the number one terrorist nation -
conducted a successful test of its 800-mile-range Shahab-3 missile.
There are reports that Iran is now set to begin domestic production of
the missile, which will be able to reach Israel, as well as U.S.
troops deployed in the Middle East and South Asia.
On May 7, the Associated Press, citing an administration official,
reported that Iran is continuing development of a longer-range
missile, the Shahab-4. With an estimated range of 1,200-1,800 miles,
the Shahab-4 will be able to reach deep into Europe. That means the
fanatical mullahs in Tehran will be able to put a multitude of U.S.
allies and tens of thousands of U.S. troops within striking distance.
These developments represent a dramatic increase in the worldwide
missile threat, and one could be forgiven for thinking that the United
States might want to accelerate its efforts to build defenses against
such weapons. Yet on May 9, the Democrat-led Senate Armed Services
Committee passed a bill that would seriously hamper our ability to do
just that. The annual defense authorization bill passed by the
committee makes deep and damaging cuts to the president's proposed
budget for missile defense. Unless remedied, these cuts will erode our
ability to end our vulnerability to ballistic-missile attack.
The threat from ballistic missiles continues to grow. Today, nearly
three dozen countries have or are developing ballistic missiles of
increasing range and sophistication. This includes Iran's fellow "Axis
of Evil" members Iraq and North Korea, as well as the
terrorist-supporting regimes of Syria and Libya. This is precisely why
a January 2002 national-intelligence estimate warned that, "[t]he
probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be
used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most
of the Cold War, and will continue to grow as the capabilities of
potential adversaries mature."
After September 11, which demonstrated the willingness of our enemies
to exploit our weaknesses, we dare not willfully remain vulnerable to
this threat. But, that is essentially the impact of the partisan vote
of the Armed Services Committee. Though the bill still authorizes
several billion dollars for missile defense, its cuts are carefully
designed to gut the Pentagon's plans to protect the American people
from missiles.
Having liberated us from the constraints of the ABM treaty last
December, the Bush administration has proposed an aggressive
transformation of the previous administration's missile-defense
program. The new approach features: a single, integrated architecture
to command and control all of the various components of a missile-
defense system; multilayered defenses capable of intercepting missiles
in all phases of flight; and the ability to deploy defenses rapidly in
the event of an emergency. To accommodate these goals, the
administration has reformed the Missile Defense Agency and given it
wide latitude to pursue innovative approaches.
The Armed Services Committee majority has taken aim at each of these
worthy efforts. Its bill cuts by two-thirds the Missile Defense
Agency's staff. The critical functions of system integration and
command and control are reduced by a similar amount. Programs to
intercept missiles in the boost phase, particularly those employing
new basing modes and technologies, are virtually wiped out. And
funding for 10 test missiles, which could be deployed in an emergency,
is eliminated.
So, essentially this bill leaves the old, piecemeal approach, with
many of the most promising technologies starved of funding and a
variety of impediments to early deployment. Interestingly, just as
this saga is unfolding, the ABM treaty is set to lapse on June 13.
This bill appears to be an attempt to revive the spirit of the treaty
by those who have never accepted President Bush's decision to opt out
of it. If this is the case, they are in dwindling company.
A year ago, there was much hubbub over how any decision to renounce
the ABM treaty would alienate our allies, cause a major rift with
Russia and spark an arms race. None of those dire predictions have
come true. Dozens of countries are side-by-side with the United States
in our war on terrorism. Mr. Bush has just inked a new
nuclear-reduction treaty with Russia, which in turn has entered into a
new partnership with NATO. To be sure, Russia and many European
countries would have preferred that Mr. Bush not renounce the treaty.
But it seems that these countries were not quite as wedded to this
outmoded document as some of its American supporters.
We have entered a new era in international relations in which the
threats to this nation are increasingly complex and difficult to
predict. That reality was brought home with horrible abruptness on
September 11. Imagine if that day were to repeat itself, but this time
with a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear, chemical or biological
warhead. The only responsible course of action to deal with that
possibility is to proceed with the most robust program of missile-
defense development we can muster.
That will entail restoring the missile defense funds cut by the Armed
Services Committee majority.
(Senator Jon Kyl is a Republican from Arizona.)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
