The Left, most notably the Washington Post, has attempted to make quite
an issue out of the fact that on Sept. 11th, 2001, President BushÕs
National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice was scheduled to deliver a
speech detailing concerns over the ballistic missile threat to the
U.S., its armed forces around the world, and its allies.
The Left seems to believe that this is proof-positive that the Bush
administration was Òasleep at the wheelÓ with regard to the terrorist
threat from Al Qaida.
The fact is, the Left has always been opposed to missile defense of any
kind, just as they have opposed every major weapon system that the
Pentagon has ever requested funding for (just check John KerryÕs voting
record if you have any doubt of this).
And hereÕs another cold, hard fact: had Rice been able to deliver that
speech that day, or any day, she would have been right. Ballistic
missiles in the hands of rogue states (Iran, North Korea, and Syria),
potential rogue states (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), Red China, and a
potentially unstable Russia, do pose a great threat to the U.S., its
armed forces around the world, and our allies.
Ironically, the Left wasnÕt nearly as critical throughout the years of
the Clinton administration when members of that regime warned of the
ballistic missile threat. Perhaps that is because they knew that
Clinton and his cronies would never do anything more about the threat,
other than just talk about it.
Now that the Bush administration has shown a determination to actually
take measures to defend us against ballistic missiles, they seem
worried.
Note the similarity between what the Post says Rice was going to say on
9-11 and what key members of the Clinton administration said just a few
years before:
ÒWe are finding more and more countries who are acquiring
technologyÑnot only missile technologyÑand are developing chemical
weapons and biological weapons capabilities to be used in theater and
also on a long-range basis. So I think that is perhaps the greatest
threat that any of us will face in the coming years.
Ñ William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
22 January 1997
ÒI often remind people that a ballistic missile attack using a weapon
of mass destruction from a rogue state is every bit as much a threat to
our borders now as a Warsaw Pact tank was two decades ago.Ó
Ñ Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State
8 December 1998
ÒI William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find
that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
(Ôweapons of mass destructionÕ) and of the means of delivering such
weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,
and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.Ó
Ñ President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12938
14 November 1994
It is hard to imagine that Condoleeza Rice could have made any
statement stronger than the three above in her speech scheduled for
September 11th, 2001.
Opponents of missile defense want to rely on the Cold War defense by
deterrence, or MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The problem is, while
MAD may have been suitable for facing the Soviet Union in that
conflict, it is most assuredly not suitable for dealing with unstable
rogue regimes today.
Consider the case of Iran, for instance. Iran has a growing ballistic
missile arsenal, chemical and biological weapons, and there is evidence
that they have a burgeoning nuclear program. Some CIA estimates have
declared that Iran could have a ballistic missile capable of reaching
the continental U.S. by 2015 at the latest.
This makes no allowance for the fact that IranÕs Shihab series of
ballistic missiles, developed in cooperation to varying degrees with
North Korea, Red China and Russia, likely can already reach U.S. forces
and allies as far away as Rota, Spain and Naples, Italy.
Now, Iran is still ruled by the Ayatollahs and, in fact, they recently
tightened their grip on power. These radical Islamists are the same
folks who invaded our embassy in 1979, supported, trained, armed and
funded Hizbollah suicide bombers who killed hundreds of U.S. citizens
throughout the 1980s, and have harbored Al Qaeda terrorists since we
overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan some two years ago.
Do we really want to rely on deterrence to defend ourselves against the
same folks who drive trucks and fly airplanes into buildings?
I think not, and President Bush is 100% right in developing both
National Missile Defense and Theater Ballistic Missile Defense to
protect AmericaÕs citizens, both in uniform and out of uniform, against
this continuing threat.
Christopher Holton is editor of WorldTechTribune, the division of
WorldTribune.com dedicated to military and defense technology and systems.
He is a long-time member of the WorldTribune.com Board of Advisers and is
currently an acting Vice President with the Center for Security Policy.
He has his own not-for-profit web site dedicated to national security
issues: Nationalsecurityonline.com. He can be reached at
cholton@worldtechtribune.com.
