I'm back--after only two weeks--and ready for a new challenge in political thought. Today I'm entering the arena of international news, via The New York Times. Here's our list of possible choices: "Russia Warns Against U.S. Missile Defense Plan", "Sentencing Continues for Wartime Leader of Bosnian Serbs", "Congo and Its Rebel Groups Sign Accord to End Conflict", and, my my, here's an interesting item!--"Mission on the Mekong: Save the Giant Catfish". I, in my ignorance, would never have thought that a mission to save catfish would qualify as international news! So little I know...However, I think we'll skip that one. I'd rather read about Russia, and the fact that they are warning against missile defense sounds interesting enough, though hardly surprising. Besides, my knowledge of Bush's Missile Defense plan is extremely limited, so this should be educational as well.
"Bush Ordering Limited Missile Shield", the title says. (New title this time, did you notice? I suspect they knew I wouldn't have been as eager to leap into this article if I had read the second title first. That was really a stroke of genius, you know. Who, after reading the headline, wouldn't be pulled into guessing why Russia warns against Missile Defense? But let's move forward.) So far I have not come across Russia anywhere in this article, but I have discovered that, indeed, Mr. Bush has started wheels turning that will eventually grind out a limited missile defense system. Apparently the capabilities of the system will be adequate to deal with threats from North Korea, but would be overwhelmed (their words) by any attack from Russia or China. (Are you perhaps wondering why Russia is so worried at this modest plan? Well, wonder no more, because this modest plan is just a beginning!) "While modest, these capabilities will add to America's security and serve as a starting point for improved and expanded capabilities," stated our president. The Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, admits that yesterday was only a "start", but he's quick to add (hopefully? pessimistically?) that, of course it is "better than nothing."
"The decision comes six months after the United States formally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which lifted constraints on the Pentagon to test and field a system to shoot down long-range and short-range missiles", continues our source. (They seem slightly unsure as to whether the Treaty or the withdrawing from it lifted constraints on the Pentagon, but don't worry, I knew what they meant if they didn't.) Mr. Bush's plan seems sure to invoke considerable controversy, what with the omnipresent naysayers, those who feel the plan is too modest, and those who feel it isn't modest enough! (not to mention Russia). It seems even the plan's "staunchest supporters" acknowledge the probability of "kinks" that will need to be worked out. And of course, those who disapprove of yesterday's move have also voiced their opinions. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat, disagrees with Mr. Bush's announcement because it "violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work." (Why is it that Democrats are always zealous to condemn others' plans, but are strangely reticent about proposing something better? Mr. Levin's argument is simply a delaying tactic, and not a very good one at that. Of course, the worst part is not even the inadequateness of his argument, but the reality that the average American, secure in his very ignorance, will let this fact slip right by. And one wonders what the next generation--further along in the dumbing-down process of our very own public schools--will do when they read such blasphemy against reason and rationality. Assuming they can read at all, which seems unlikely considering how our national illiteracy rate has been soaring.)
Supporters of the system are quick to defend their position by saying that even a limited defense plan is necessary, as "potentially hostile countries continue to develop missile programs." (Only potentially hostile?? I wonder where they've been getting their news.) Mr. Bush's plan envisions three levels of defense; first, the military would counter any short or medium based missile threats with missiles similar to those used in the Gulf war; second, sea-based interceptors would be placed on Navy cruisers and destroyers to knock out missiles shortly after they were launched; and third, land-based interceptors would be placed to destroy missiles that have already left the atmosphere. The plan involves getting approval from Britain and Denmark to upgrade radar systems at, respectively, the Royal Air Force base at Fylingdales and Thule Air Base in Greenland.
The "modest" plan will need approval from Congress to gain access to the $1.5 billion in "additional funds" that will be needed over the next two years. But though costly (using the average American's definition, not that of Congress), this unpretentious plan is necessary as the first step towards a successful missile defense system. Perhaps, after all, the issue is not whether this particular proposal is flawless, but whether we remember why we need a missile defense plan in the first place. Do we really want to be unprepared for missile warfare? I don't think so. Wouldn't we condemn the president in much harsher terms if he wasn't to pursue a defense plan--and the foreseeable happened?
The critics of Mr. Bush's plan are many, but I think they overlook the crux of the matter. If not a Limited Missile Defense, then what? And how long do we want to haggle over the specifics while we remain vulnerable to our enemies? Mr. Bush's plan may not be perfect, but at least it is a plan. And it should make Americans--even Senator Carl Levin, Democrat--feel safer to know that our president is looking out for our welfare.
"Bush Ordering Limited Missile Shield", the title says. (New title this time, did you notice? I suspect they knew I wouldn't have been as eager to leap into this article if I had read the second title first. That was really a stroke of genius, you know. Who, after reading the headline, wouldn't be pulled into guessing why Russia warns against Missile Defense? But let's move forward.) So far I have not come across Russia anywhere in this article, but I have discovered that, indeed, Mr. Bush has started wheels turning that will eventually grind out a limited missile defense system. Apparently the capabilities of the system will be adequate to deal with threats from North Korea, but would be overwhelmed (their words) by any attack from Russia or China. (Are you perhaps wondering why Russia is so worried at this modest plan? Well, wonder no more, because this modest plan is just a beginning!) "While modest, these capabilities will add to America's security and serve as a starting point for improved and expanded capabilities," stated our president. The Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, admits that yesterday was only a "start", but he's quick to add (hopefully? pessimistically?) that, of course it is "better than nothing."
"The decision comes six months after the United States formally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which lifted constraints on the Pentagon to test and field a system to shoot down long-range and short-range missiles", continues our source. (They seem slightly unsure as to whether the Treaty or the withdrawing from it lifted constraints on the Pentagon, but don't worry, I knew what they meant if they didn't.) Mr. Bush's plan seems sure to invoke considerable controversy, what with the omnipresent naysayers, those who feel the plan is too modest, and those who feel it isn't modest enough! (not to mention Russia). It seems even the plan's "staunchest supporters" acknowledge the probability of "kinks" that will need to be worked out. And of course, those who disapprove of yesterday's move have also voiced their opinions. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat, disagrees with Mr. Bush's announcement because it "violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work." (Why is it that Democrats are always zealous to condemn others' plans, but are strangely reticent about proposing something better? Mr. Levin's argument is simply a delaying tactic, and not a very good one at that. Of course, the worst part is not even the inadequateness of his argument, but the reality that the average American, secure in his very ignorance, will let this fact slip right by. And one wonders what the next generation--further along in the dumbing-down process of our very own public schools--will do when they read such blasphemy against reason and rationality. Assuming they can read at all, which seems unlikely considering how our national illiteracy rate has been soaring.)
Supporters of the system are quick to defend their position by saying that even a limited defense plan is necessary, as "potentially hostile countries continue to develop missile programs." (Only potentially hostile?? I wonder where they've been getting their news.) Mr. Bush's plan envisions three levels of defense; first, the military would counter any short or medium based missile threats with missiles similar to those used in the Gulf war; second, sea-based interceptors would be placed on Navy cruisers and destroyers to knock out missiles shortly after they were launched; and third, land-based interceptors would be placed to destroy missiles that have already left the atmosphere. The plan involves getting approval from Britain and Denmark to upgrade radar systems at, respectively, the Royal Air Force base at Fylingdales and Thule Air Base in Greenland.
The "modest" plan will need approval from Congress to gain access to the $1.5 billion in "additional funds" that will be needed over the next two years. But though costly (using the average American's definition, not that of Congress), this unpretentious plan is necessary as the first step towards a successful missile defense system. Perhaps, after all, the issue is not whether this particular proposal is flawless, but whether we remember why we need a missile defense plan in the first place. Do we really want to be unprepared for missile warfare? I don't think so. Wouldn't we condemn the president in much harsher terms if he wasn't to pursue a defense plan--and the foreseeable happened?
The critics of Mr. Bush's plan are many, but I think they overlook the crux of the matter. If not a Limited Missile Defense, then what? And how long do we want to haggle over the specifics while we remain vulnerable to our enemies? Mr. Bush's plan may not be perfect, but at least it is a plan. And it should make Americans--even Senator Carl Levin, Democrat--feel safer to know that our president is looking out for our welfare.
