Playing word games while Iran builds bombs
- 06/17/13 02:00 PM ET
Politicians sometimes use word games and bureaucratic trickery to stop initiatives they disagree with. The most recent example: Sen. Carl Levin’s (D-Mich.) June 6 letter to the head of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, ardently opposes building a missile defense facility on the East Coast. Disturbed that the House is considering a proposal to develop an East Coast site, Levin fired off a letter to Vice Admiral James D. Syring asking if there exists a “validated military requirement” for the missile defense site.
Syring, the director of the MDA, dutifully responded, “No.” Levin then triumphantly posted the letter on his website, under a headline screaming, “Senior officers: ‘No validated military requirement’ for East Coast missile defense site.”
Understandably, this presentation led many lawmakers and members of the press to believe that there is no military justification for the site. But that’s not at all what the “senior officers” were saying.
Syring, the director of the MDA, dutifully responded, “No.” Levin then triumphantly posted the letter on his website, under a headline screaming, “Senior officers: ‘No validated military requirement’ for East Coast missile defense site.”
Understandably, this presentation led many lawmakers and members of the press to believe that there is no military justification for the site. But that’s not at all what the “senior officers” were saying.
Levin knows this. It’s why he used that terminology in his query. It was bound to elicit a “no,” which could then be used to mislead people into thinking that an East Coast missile defense site would serve no valid purpose.
But the reality is this: Intelligence assessments have found repeatedly that Iran is moving forward in developing long-range missiles. A recent IAEA report confirmed Tehran is making great progress on its nuclear program as well. Clearly, a capability to intercept Iranian missiles is more crucial than ever.
Even President Obama, no friend of missile defense, recognizes that we need a missile defense site to mitigate the Iranian threat. This was the mission of the SM-3IIB, the missile defense system he planned to deploy in Europe. The administration later cancelled this program for several reasons: technical problems, Russian objections, and the State Department’s desire to reach an arms control agreement with Moscow. But the security rationale behind erecting that defense remains wholly valid.
Admiral Syring’s response acknowledged that an East Coast site would provide “operational capability”—something we really need. But his letter noted there could be more “cost-effective near term” alternatives to an East Coast site.
Again, lawmakers must read between the lines. Would more interceptors in the California and Alaska sites we already have be helpful? Yes. Would improving the systems we already have in place be helpful? Undoubtedly. And the U.S. should do them. But the U.S. should not implement the cheapest options in place of the option that would provide significantly increased security.
Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering III (USAF, ret.), a former MDA Director, and other senior military officers have made it clear an additional site would be uniquely helpful. As Gen. Charles H. Jacoby, commander of the U.S. Northern Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee: “What a third site gives me, whether it’s on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be increased battle space; that means increased opportunity for me to engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.”
When it comes to national security, there’s no place for word games and petty partisanship. Lawmakers should work together to fund and ensure deployment of a third site as quickly as possible.
Heinrichs, an expert on nuclear deterrence and missile defense, is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/305739-playing-word-games-while-iran-builds-bombs#ixzz2WVOywbi9
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Fact-checking…
ReplyDeleteI have great admiration for Senator Levin, because of his bull-dogging the Wall Street banksters in his committee hearings.
You really should have fact-checked this before posting. His question does not state or imply that MDA must produce a validated military requirement. It simply asks whether the military has determined whether this thing is required for our national defense. The idea is that it would be nice for the military to tell Congress they need this $3 billion system BEFORE Congress appropriates the money for it. This is a perfect example of why our defense budget is more than the next 13 countries combined. The politicians just want to be able to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they voted for this military hardware to defend against (nonexistent) missiles from the evil Iran that our own military tells them is unnecessary.
So, that was Senator Levin's first question. Your article doesn't mention that there were three questions.
The second question was whether MDA thinks it might be a smart idea for Congress to wait completion of the pending Environmental Impact Statement required by section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) before going ahead with authorizing it. The MDA answered "Yes."
The third question was whether MDA believes there is a more cost effective and less expensive alternative to an East Coast missile defense site that is also available sooner than deployment of an East Coast missile defense site. Here was their answer…
"Yes. Investment in Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) discrimination and sensor capabilities would result in more cost-effective near-term improvements to homeland missile defense. The Department of Defense is evaluating potential sensors enhancements that could be pursued to improve the BMDS kill chain and increase threat discrimination in addition to the evaluation of an additional interceptor site. While a potential East Coast site would add operational capability it would also come at significant materiel development and service sustainment cost. This evaluation, and others, will serve to inform decisions on our future BMDS architecture and budget requests."
The men who wrote this letter in response to Senator Levin's questions were J. D. Syring (Director, Missile Defense Agency) and Richard P. Formica (Vice Admiral, USN Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Commander, Joint Functional Command for Integrated Missile Defense).
Nobody in the U.S. military knows more about missile defense systems than these two men, which is why Senator Levin addressed his questions to them. This is their specific field of military expertise and responsibility in the government.
You should be proud of your Senator Levin. He's one of the best. He's one of the few not afraid to stand up to Wall Street.
--David
You missed the point of the article. Levin got the answer he wanted and then published it on his website. Crowing after setting up a question to get the answer you want, is not leadership or fact finding. In court it would be leading the witness.
ReplyDeleteI got the point of the article.
ReplyDeleteSenator Levin got confirmation from experts of what he believed to be true. That is fact-finding.
I spend a fair amount of time in courts, and I can tell the difference between a neutral question and a leading question. The neutral question would be: "Has there ever been a determination of valid military requirement for this system?" The question calls for a simple "yes" or "no" answer, but does not lead the witness toward either response. To phrase it as a leading question, you would ask something like, "Are you aware that there has never been a determination of valid military requirement?"
Besides, the most important part of the letter was their response to Levin's third question about whether MDA believes there is a more cost effective and less expensive alternative to an East Coast missile defense site that is also available sooner than deployment of an East Coast missile defense site. That is also a straight fact-seeking question, not leading at all.
What was your view of Senator Levin's role in questioning the Wall Street banks on their derivatives scams? I watched a lot of those hearings on C-SPAN and thought he did an excellent job.
--David