On September 17th I had both praise and some doubts for the new plan. I liked the shift to a distributed, flexible, and more mobile system. On the other hand, the plan seemed vague and incomplete and not very reassuring to allies in eastern Europe. In particular, I wondered where the X-band radar, previously slated for the Czech Republic and highly praised for its capabilities by General Cartwright, was going to end up. Without a convincing plan for missile defense sensors in Europe, it is hard to claim that there really is a missile defense plan for Europe.
It seems as if vagueness on the X-band radar and other sensors has turned into confusion and perhaps paralysis. In the end, Russian objections to high-powered missile defense radars, and the Obama administration's acquiescence to those objections, is for now gutting the administration's credibility on European missile defense. The Bush administration found out that its missile defense sensors would annoy the Russians but that annoyance would not stop the U.S. from having a missile defense system in Europe. The Obama team does not seem —to reach this same conclusion. Until it does, it does not really have a European missile defense plan.
Let's go back to the September 17th Gates and Cartwright briefing at the Pentagon. First, here is Cartwright discussing the virtues of the X-band radar:
But we've also added mobile and re-locatable radars: the X-band radar that is in Japan, the X-band radar that we currently have deployed to Israel, one that will be probably deployed someplace in Europe, to be part of this European lay down. That system has proved to be very, very effective and very capable.
The Bush plan had such a radar in the Czech Republic. This annoyed the Russians and led to the Obama team relocating it, as Cartwright explains in this confusing and contradictory excerpt:
It's [the X-band radar] probably more likely to be in The Caucasus that we would base that, because it's to get the early tracks. So that likely would be more down in The Caucasus ... On the X-band radar, what we're trying to get -- the first question really has to do with Russia and their perception of a threat, from the radar that would have been in the Czech Republic. And that radar is an omni-directional radar. In other words, it sees 360 degrees. And it has a very deep peering capability into Russia. And the worry would be that we would be able then to see very early the launches if Russia were launching their ICBMs and that could be perceived as destabilizing. The X-band radar is a single directional. In other words, when you put it down, it points in a single direction. And it will be very clear that it is pointing south towards Iran.
Confusing or not, the X-band radar is going to "the Caucasus," right? Probably not, according to this story from the Wall Street Journal:
"We are not consulting with any non-NATO countries and we do not envisage the emplacement of elements of our new architecture on the territory of any non-NATO states," Deputy Secretary of Defense Sandy Vershbow, who had been quoted in the initial reports that rattled Moscow, told reporters Tuesday in the Georgian capital Tbilisi.
This also terminated an idea of using radars in Ukraine for the European missile defense system.
So where is that European X-band radar going? Romania or Bulgaria? From the Russians' point of view, those are no different than the Czech Republic. How about Turkey? I have seen no mention of Turkey as a site. Perhaps the Turkish government has already quietly and preemptively rejected the idea.
The conclusion is that the sensor plan for the European missile defense system is even vaguer than it was on September 17th. Cartwright discussed plans to site an X-band radar, which by his words seems very important to the system, somewhere "in the Caucasus." But the Pentagon has since scratched that idea. Cartwright also discussed a concept of distributed space-based and airborne sensors for missile defense. But that vague concept looks more like a theory than an actual capability, like the X-band radar.
It is Russian objections that removed the X-band radar from the Czech Republic and that are keeping it out of the Ukraine, Georgia, the Caucasus, or anywhere else in Russia's "near abroad." Without missile defense sensors in Europe, there is no European missile defense system. The Obama administration's European missile defense plan is not looking "stronger, smarter, and swifter."
Comments
Interesting blog and I believe you are essentially correct in your conclusions Mr Haddick.
Personally, I do not see the move to a more agile mobile system as much as a shift in strategy. These mobile systems have been in development all along and I doubt there will be much in the way of a change in their programs. I'd say the decision was more of a way to simply drop those fixed installations from the strategy without seeming to be walking away from missile defense all together.
There is a another posibility though. As much as it pains me to say this as a recently re-assigned Patriot AD Officer, the shift may just be a move towards the very capable Aegis system. The Navy has built a heck of a platform there, and maybe it is thought that it will soon perform well enough to replace those proposed ground based systems.
To respond to some comments, I would not be so quick to dismiss Iran as a threat. They are building capability (both nuclear and missile tech) pretty quickly, and I do not believe we can be certain they will behave in what we consider to be a rational manner.
What is the use of having that European missile defense radar? Where would that be used? Instead of spending billions of government money for that missile radar that should be used to fund for the peoples services and aids. I think they just have to catch those drug lords and get their millions and spend that to anything.
Just like deciding to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey in '62, a diplomatic, not a military-led decision needs to occur. We know why x-bands in Eastern Europe make the Russians uneasy (even if it's not a technologically valid point) but it is an issue nonetheless.
Partnering with Russia (I understand the site in Azerbaijan isn't the best but what about their offer at Armavir?) over the European shield would have wider-reaching benefits than just defense of NATO from Iranian missiles, should the Iranians ever be crazy enough to launch at them for some reason. And furthermore, by tying radar site to a NATO country is an underhanded move to gain political pull for Ukraine and Georgian accession which would inflame matters even worse than the 'threat' of Iranian IRBMs.
So far, I do think temporarily shelving the plan based on current technical limitations is "stronger, smarter, and swifter" given the diplo push-back. A better way can be found to generate better options and improved relationships.