Given the recent prominence of the missile defense debate, I figured I would drag out something a wrote way back in February of this year on the topic. My views have changed somewhat since then, particularly regarding the utility of missile defense as a deterrent. But I stand by the policy recommendations I made. (Some smart folks seem to agree as well, which is always heartening.) Enjoy and please comment at will.
The Future of Missile Defense: Recommendations for the Incoming Obama Administration
Evan Tachovsky
February 12, 2009
The advent of the Obama presidency comes at a critical moment in the debate on the viability of missile defense. America’s new president must decide how or even if ballistic missile defense (BMD) should be a part of America’s broader defense strategy. There is no shortage of opinions on how the administration should proceed on key issues including America’s controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and the expansion of the Aegis system at sea. During the Bush administration, advocates of BMD warned that North Korea and Iran would soon be able to hold the U.S. hostage, while its critics decried the program as an untenable cash cow only benefiting military industrialists. The purpose of the current investigation is first to delineate why the further development of America’s BMD capabilities should be a priority for the Obama administration and second to suggest a reorganization of priorities to ensure the financial, technical and strategic viability of America’s defenses.
More after the jump --->
The Future of Missile Defense: Recommendations for the Incoming Obama Administration
Evan Tachovsky
February 12, 2009
The advent of the Obama presidency comes at a critical moment in the debate on the viability of missile defense. America’s new president must decide how or even if ballistic missile defense (BMD) should be a part of America’s broader defense strategy. There is no shortage of opinions on how the administration should proceed on key issues including America’s controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and the expansion of the Aegis system at sea. During the Bush administration, advocates of BMD warned that North Korea and Iran would soon be able to hold the U.S. hostage, while its critics decried the program as an untenable cash cow only benefiting military industrialists. The purpose of the current investigation is first to delineate why the further development of America’s BMD capabilities should be a priority for the Obama administration and second to suggest a reorganization of priorities to ensure the financial, technical and strategic viability of America’s defenses.
More after the jump --->
Add Comment
The Patriot Missile
Sometimes you just have to cut your loses and start over. Apparently this is what the Obama administration has decided to do with the long awaited European missile defense shield. I can't say that I'm sad to see it go.
The Bush era missile defense scheme for Europe had as much credibility as Gaddafi's son's thesis on the democratization. The system, which to date has cost the US close to a billion dollars, wouldn't have been able to effectively defend against an attack of more than two missiles, distinguish between a simple decoy and real missile, or identify a missile as such if its nose cone was covered with a shiny, metallic shell. And that is just a short list of its failings.
For more details, check out the East-West Institute's report on Iran's ballistic missile program and America's response; section 4 is particularly informative.
While I'm happy to see thisineffective cash-cow go the way of the dinosaur, I can't help but find the timing of the move particularly interesting. Anyone else think this is an attempt to curry favor with Russia in advance of what will surely be tough negotiations on sanction for Iran?
-Evan
More after the jump -->
The Bush era missile defense scheme for Europe had as much credibility as Gaddafi's son's thesis on the democratization. The system, which to date has cost the US close to a billion dollars, wouldn't have been able to effectively defend against an attack of more than two missiles, distinguish between a simple decoy and real missile, or identify a missile as such if its nose cone was covered with a shiny, metallic shell. And that is just a short list of its failings.
For more details, check out the East-West Institute's report on Iran's ballistic missile program and America's response; section 4 is particularly informative.
While I'm happy to see thisineffective cash-cow go the way of the dinosaur, I can't help but find the timing of the move particularly interesting. Anyone else think this is an attempt to curry favor with Russia in advance of what will surely be tough negotiations on sanction for Iran?
-Evan
More after the jump -->
Hezbollah Remains 09/16/2009
Nothing says Hezbollah like Nasrallah and rockets - Photo NYTimes
In most countries, when a party loses an election its political power diminishes. Well, Lebanon isn't "most countries" and Hezbollah isn't your average political party. Mohamad Bazzi has an excellent article in Foreign Affairs on how Hezbollah, inspite of its electoral defeat by the March 14 Alliance in June, has managed to remain the strongest party in Lebanon's splintered political system:
Since the June 7 Lebanese parliamentary elections, an alluring but simplistic narrative has emerged in the West: because Hezbollah and its allies were defeated at the polls, the militant group would lose some of its luster and a pro-American political coalition would rule Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah remains the country's dominant military and political force. Moreover, it holds the key to both domestic and external stability -- its actions will determine whether there is another war with Israel or if Lebanon will once again be wracked by internal conflict. By losing the election, Hezbollah also avoided being held accountable by Lebanon's other sects -- without power, there is little responsibility.
Since the June 7 Lebanese parliamentary elections, an alluring but simplistic narrative has emerged in the West: because Hezbollah and its allies were defeated at the polls, the militant group would lose some of its luster and a pro-American political coalition would rule Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah remains the country's dominant military and political force. Moreover, it holds the key to both domestic and external stability -- its actions will determine whether there is another war with Israel or if Lebanon will once again be wracked by internal conflict. By losing the election, Hezbollah also avoided being held accountable by Lebanon's other sects -- without power, there is little responsibility.
Lithium - The New Oil? 09/12/2009
Lithium Mines in Bolivia - NYTimes.com
Lithium-ion batteries, because of their high energy density, are the batteries of choice for most new high-tech devices: cell phones, laptops, etc.
But if the world begins mass-producing electric cars, Lithium demand will skyrocket, offering windfall profits for countries who have large supplies of the element. The amount of lithium needed to run a car dwarfs the amount needed to power a laptop.
Bolivia claims to have nearly half of the world's known lithium reserves. Tibet also has large reserves. If lithium continues to be the element of choice for making car batteries, then keep an eye on this commodity, because it will have increasingly important geopolitical implications.
But if the world begins mass-producing electric cars, Lithium demand will skyrocket, offering windfall profits for countries who have large supplies of the element. The amount of lithium needed to run a car dwarfs the amount needed to power a laptop.
Bolivia claims to have nearly half of the world's known lithium reserves. Tibet also has large reserves. If lithium continues to be the element of choice for making car batteries, then keep an eye on this commodity, because it will have increasingly important geopolitical implications.
Currently Reading 09/12/2009
The Libyan flag- a simple, plain green; anyone see the irony?
Fred Halliday's reflections on 40 years of Qaddafi rule in Libya.
Money quote:
There are many ways to enter the strange story of al-Jamahiriya ("the state of the masses"), whose originating event was marked on 1 September 2009 by a spectacular celebration in Tripoli filled with extravagant stage-management and kitsch special-effects. The event was seen in much of the world outside Libya against the background of the concurrent media and diplomatic controversy over the release from a Scottish jail on 20 August 2009 of the only person convicted of any part in the Pan-Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie in December 1998, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi (who, incidentally, belongs to an influential branch of the Magariha tribe, which links him to Major Jelloud). As a result, the experience of these four decades in Libya's history - and their impact on the Arab world and beyond - has been somewhat overshadowed. A pity, for these offer some sobering lessons in the politics of illusion.
Money quote:
There are many ways to enter the strange story of al-Jamahiriya ("the state of the masses"), whose originating event was marked on 1 September 2009 by a spectacular celebration in Tripoli filled with extravagant stage-management and kitsch special-effects. The event was seen in much of the world outside Libya against the background of the concurrent media and diplomatic controversy over the release from a Scottish jail on 20 August 2009 of the only person convicted of any part in the Pan-Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie in December 1998, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi (who, incidentally, belongs to an influential branch of the Magariha tribe, which links him to Major Jelloud). As a result, the experience of these four decades in Libya's history - and their impact on the Arab world and beyond - has been somewhat overshadowed. A pity, for these offer some sobering lessons in the politics of illusion.
What Not to Read 09/12/2009
For the latest installment in our What Not to Read series I offer this maddening miasma from the editors of the Baltimore Sun:
As we reflect today on this anniversary of loss and imagine a skyline over New York City where we can still see the Twin Towers, it would do us good to remember the lessons we learned on that day. Namely, that there are those in this world who are willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives, to hurt us. This lesson is currently being ignored in the Obama administration's policies toward Iran, a move that could cost us just as greatly as that day in September. Etc.
Now I know--it’s the Baltimore Sun. No one (or at least no one of substance) takes it's views on foreign policy seriously. The problem is that this sort of article fuels popular demand for bad policy. It allows concerned citizens to project their worst fears on to a seemingly logical bad guy: the Iranian boogieman. Hence, a rebuttal is in order.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
As we reflect today on this anniversary of loss and imagine a skyline over New York City where we can still see the Twin Towers, it would do us good to remember the lessons we learned on that day. Namely, that there are those in this world who are willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives, to hurt us. This lesson is currently being ignored in the Obama administration's policies toward Iran, a move that could cost us just as greatly as that day in September. Etc.
Now I know--it’s the Baltimore Sun. No one (or at least no one of substance) takes it's views on foreign policy seriously. The problem is that this sort of article fuels popular demand for bad policy. It allows concerned citizens to project their worst fears on to a seemingly logical bad guy: the Iranian boogieman. Hence, a rebuttal is in order.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
The Basij Militia 09/11/2009
The BBC offers a fascinating glimpse into how Iran's notorious Basij militia operates.
Reportedly, many "Basiji" are recruited at a young age- 12 or younger. Some are drawn by ideology and some by money, while others relish the violence.
According to one Basij defectee, the members are "brainwashed":
"It [the brainwashing] takes place every night or weekly in the mosques they attend, so much so that they really believe that the protesters and opposition supporters on the streets are standing against the Prophet's teaching and Islam, they [the protesters) are mohareb (enemies of God) and their blood can be split, they should be killed."
The question remains-- what is the tipping point for an en masse defection?
Reportedly, many "Basiji" are recruited at a young age- 12 or younger. Some are drawn by ideology and some by money, while others relish the violence.
According to one Basij defectee, the members are "brainwashed":
"It [the brainwashing] takes place every night or weekly in the mosques they attend, so much so that they really believe that the protesters and opposition supporters on the streets are standing against the Prophet's teaching and Islam, they [the protesters) are mohareb (enemies of God) and their blood can be split, they should be killed."
The question remains-- what is the tipping point for an en masse defection?
17 Percent 09/11/2009
That is the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports that came from the Middle East in June 2009, the last month for which data is available.
One of the biggest and most prevalent myths out there is that the U.S. imports most of its oil from the Middle East. This is the fountainhead for a thousand conspiracy theories centered on America's thirst for Islamic oil.
Yes, the oil market is sufficiently tight that major disruptions in the Middle East can have huge effects on world oil prices, and thus have significant effects on the American economy. But the U.S. gets most of its oil from its Western Hemisphere neighbors: Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico provide for over half of U.S. crude oil imports.
Expect this figure to rise as Brazil's begins tapping its vast offshore deposits. And although American reserves are in decline, the U.S. is still the third largest oil producer in the world, supplying 1/4 of domestic oil consumption.
One of the biggest and most prevalent myths out there is that the U.S. imports most of its oil from the Middle East. This is the fountainhead for a thousand conspiracy theories centered on America's thirst for Islamic oil.
Yes, the oil market is sufficiently tight that major disruptions in the Middle East can have huge effects on world oil prices, and thus have significant effects on the American economy. But the U.S. gets most of its oil from its Western Hemisphere neighbors: Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico provide for over half of U.S. crude oil imports.
Expect this figure to rise as Brazil's begins tapping its vast offshore deposits. And although American reserves are in decline, the U.S. is still the third largest oil producer in the world, supplying 1/4 of domestic oil consumption.
A Moment of Humor from Hugo Chavez 09/11/2009
In world beset with instability, it is wonderful to know that some things remain the same: Hugo Chavez still plays the maracas at political rallies, even if they are in a foreign country.
From the BBC: Mr Chavez arrived on Wednesday and gave a speech at Moscow's People's Friendship University. Characteristically, it lasted two and a half hours and included a tirade against the United States as well as a singalong, with Mr Chavez on maracas.
Hat tip to Kim for this one.
From the BBC: Mr Chavez arrived on Wednesday and gave a speech at Moscow's People's Friendship University. Characteristically, it lasted two and a half hours and included a tirade against the United States as well as a singalong, with Mr Chavez on maracas.
Hat tip to Kim for this one.
America's Latest and Greatest Missile Defense System, THAAD
Question: Which country bought the most arms from the US in 2008?
The answer is the United Arab Emirates with $9.7 billion in new purchases. As you might guess, the UAE wasn't buying billions of dollars worth of M16s and hand grenades. The majority of the the money was spent on one weapons system: Lockheed Martin's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
Since this is a political blog and not a wonky one, I'll spare you the technical details. Basically what you need to know is that THAAD is a ground-based air defense systems that relies on kinetic instead of explosive energy to bring down its target and has a functional range of 200km.
Although much of the testing the Missile Defense Agency performs is about as close to real world operation as masturbation is to sex, THAAD has a perfect kill record since full system tests began in 2006. Check out video of the March 2009 test here.
THAAD was first deployed for use by US forces in May 2008. Four months later, the Bush administration agreed to sell the Emirates THAAD for a whopping $6.9 billion. Congress subsequently approved the deal and the UAE is set to take delivery of the system by the end of 2010. It doesn't take Henry Kissinger to figure out that the reason the US decided to sell the UAE its most advanced air defense system was to counter Iran's ability to threaten America's interests in the region.
The answer is the United Arab Emirates with $9.7 billion in new purchases. As you might guess, the UAE wasn't buying billions of dollars worth of M16s and hand grenades. The majority of the the money was spent on one weapons system: Lockheed Martin's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
Since this is a political blog and not a wonky one, I'll spare you the technical details. Basically what you need to know is that THAAD is a ground-based air defense systems that relies on kinetic instead of explosive energy to bring down its target and has a functional range of 200km.
Although much of the testing the Missile Defense Agency performs is about as close to real world operation as masturbation is to sex, THAAD has a perfect kill record since full system tests began in 2006. Check out video of the March 2009 test here.
THAAD was first deployed for use by US forces in May 2008. Four months later, the Bush administration agreed to sell the Emirates THAAD for a whopping $6.9 billion. Congress subsequently approved the deal and the UAE is set to take delivery of the system by the end of 2010. It doesn't take Henry Kissinger to figure out that the reason the US decided to sell the UAE its most advanced air defense system was to counter Iran's ability to threaten America's interests in the region.
Loading
