Missile Defense Monitor: Kirk's Proposed Missile Defense Amendment

Staying on the theme of Republicans who want to use the Russian invasion of Georgia to bolster support for the need for a third missile defense site in Europe, Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) intends to “offer an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill to fully restore funding cuts to the Missile Defense Agency's budget for the deployment of U.S. Ballistic Missile Defenses to Poland and the Czech Republic.” His (flawed) reasoning?

"As Russian ballistic missiles rain down on Georgia, we should honor our commitment to allies in Poland and the Czech Republic that asked for our help," said Kirk, a member of the Appropriations Committee and a U.S. Navy intelligence officer.

…

"To maintain regional stability and protect our NATO allies, Congress should honor this request from our allies who are concerned about Russia’s invasion of Georgia."

…

"In May, the United States had not reached an official agreement with either Poland or the Czech Republic on the deployment of our missile defenses," Kirk noted. "Today, the Polish and Czech requests are formal after Russian missiles hit targets in Georgia. Congress should support the requests of the Polish and Czech people to have these defenses."

Expect to see most Republicans and some conservative Democrats in both the House and Senate declare their support for such amendments as they mark up and debate their respective versions of the FY 09 defense appropriations bill next month.

Missile Defense Monitor: How the conflict in the South Caucuses is impacting Congressional views on missile defense

Last week, I noted that some Republican lawmakers have indicated that they intend to use Russia’s invasion of Georgia to overturn the funding and construction restrictions imposed by the Democratic-led Congress on the Bush administration’s proposal to place a missile defense system in Europe.

According to CQ’s Josh Rogin, Senate Republicans are already all but declaring victory:

Appropriators and Armed Services panels in both the House and Senate had conditioned funding for the European sites on four major elements. They include ratification of the agreements by the Czech and Polish Polish parliaments, which could occur by the end of the year; a required analysis of alternatives by an independent research group, which was was completed and sent to Congress in July, and certification by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that the missile defense system can actually shoot down incoming missiles.

“Every objection has been addressed and every demand raised by the Democrats has now been met,” said Senate Armed Services panel member James M. Inhofe , R-Okla. “It is now left to Congress to act swiftly in fully funding the European site.”

Added one Senate GOP aide: “Republicans will think they have a very strong hand now. They’re argument will be that NATO wants it, Poland wants it, the Czech Republic wants it, so why don’t the Democrats want it?”

Except that every objection has not been addressed and every demand raised by the Democrats has not been met. First, neither the Czech nor the Polish parliaments have approved the agreements. While parliamentary approval appears likely in Poland (both the government and the lead opposition party support the deal), Czech parliamentary approval remains in doubt. Czech officials hope to submit the agreement to the Czech parliament sometime in November, although some analysts maintain that the deal will not be voted on until 2010.

Second, someone should duly inform Senator Inhofe that the system has yet to be tested. According to an October 2007 report by Dr. Charles McQueary, the Department of Defense's Director, Operational Test & Evaluation “the effectiveness of the European assets cannot be assumed.” A robust test program of the system consisting of at least three flight tests is necessary for any determination of operational effectiveness.

The Missile Defense Agency hopes to complete all three tests by 2010. Yet tests of the existing U.S.-based system have frequently been delayed, in some cases for many months. In addition, given that only 7 of the previous 13 tests of this system have been successful, more than three tests could be required to confirm the system's operational effectiveness.

Encouragingly, House Democrats appear to be standing firm. In the words of House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairwoman Representative Ellen O. Tauscher (D-CA):

The events in Georgia have nothing to do with the interceptors the U.S. is considering deploying in Poland, and Congress believes that this system is untested and fails to defend against current and emerging threats….Congress will not be funding an untested system, period.”

Missile Defense Monitor

Big news on the missile defense front this week as Poland and the United States signed a missile defense agreement. For an assessment of what it all means, check out this analysis I just published on the Center's website.

Also, Center Executive Director John Isaacs appeared on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on Wednesday to discuss the agreement. A transcript, audio, and video of Isaac's appearance can be found here.

Missile Defense Monitor: Missile Defense and the Military Industrial Complex

According to a disclosure form filed on July 21 with the House clerk's office, defense contractor and aerospace firm Raytheon spent nearly $1.5 million lobbying various government institutions on a variety of issues, including ballistic missile defense.

Kind of reminds me of what a Cold-War era President once warned against:

Missile Defense Monitor

Missile defense developments to report over the past two weeks include:

1) On June 5, MDA conducted a successful test of a component of its Aegis BMD system. Unlike the part of the Navy’s Aegis system that uses an SM-3 “hit-to-kill” interceptor to destroy short- to intermediate-range targets during the midcourse phase of their flight, last week’s test of the Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) system used two SM-2 Block IV interceptors, which use blast fragmentation warheads, to destroy a short-range missile during the terminal phase of its flight.

MDA first demonstrated the ability to target short-range ballistic missiles using the SM-2 Block IV interceptor against short-range missiles during a test in May 2006, and hopes to field an initial SBT capability on 18 Aegis BMD ships sometime in FY 2009.

Overall, the Aegis system has now been successful on 12 out of 14 tests since 2002. The most recent success prompted the skipper of the ship from which the SM-2 Block IV’s were launched, the USS Lake Erie, to proclaim, “I am suffering from post-shot euphoria.” Maybe I’ll catch the same malady when I attend Northrop Grumman’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) demonstration at the end of June!

2) During a visit to Washington this week, Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg stated that approval of the U.S. proposal to place a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic could be defeated by widespread Czech public opposition.

As yours truly has repeatedly reminded all you missile defense wonks out there (see here for proof), any agreement must be ratified by the Czech parliament (and perhaps even survive a public referendum). Though Secretary Rice is scheduled to sign an agreement on June 10 during a visit to Prague, it’s looking increasingly likely that the U.S. will have to find another destination for its radar.

3) During a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to press NATO members to agree on options for a NATO missile defense system. The long-range anti-missile system the U.S. hopes to deploy in the Czech Republic and Poland would not cover large swaths of southeastern Europe in range of Iranian short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, including parts of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and almost all of Turkey.

Nine NATO countries are currently working on an Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system, which is designed to allow NATO countries to coordinate their response to an attack via short- to intermediate range missiles. The system is slated to become “initially operational” by 2010.

Missile Defense Monitor

The following is a summary of recent non-National Defense Authorization Act-related missile defense news and developments.

1) According to a new study conducted by the Center for Business & Economic Research (CBER) at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, the economic impacts of the Boeing Company’s work on Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in Alabama in 2007 include:

• Nearly 5,600 direct and indirect jobs
  
• $80 million payroll
  
• $198 million in Alabama household earnings
  
• 38 jobs created in the state for every 10 Boeing GMD jobs
  
• The highly skilled, high-income GMD program work force earned an average of 1.9 times the average 2006 wage for an Alabama worker.

Such statistics are important in understanding the relatively strong bipartisan support commanded by missile defense. Let us consider why.

While Congress has been willing to cut funds for and place restrictions on certain missile defense programs, it has ultimately failed to make substantial inroads in the overall missile defense budget. For example, of the $57.9 billion the president has requested for the missile defense agency (MDA) since ‘01, Congress has appropriated $57.8 billion.

The Bush administration’s theological devotion to missile defense, a Republican dominated Congress over the past seven years, and the fact that the Joint Chiefs (who have traditionally been hostile to large missile defense budgets) have not opposed increased funding for missile defense because the overall defense budget has risen along with it explains a great deal about why MDA’s budget has become so grossly inflated.

However, there is another, oft-overlooked, rationale at work here.

Since 2006, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to cut the overall missile defense budget. Not surprisingly, Republicans have voted overwhelmingly against the amendment. Yet how is one to explain Democratic votes on the amendment? In 2006, 117 Democrats voted in favor, while 80 voted against. In 2007 the count was 124 in favor, 105 against. In 2008, it was 117 in favor, 111 against.

The University of Alabama study provides a window as to why the votes have unfolded as they have. Missile defense assets have been farmed-out to locations all across the country. The economic benefits that have accrued to local economies from this process have created a powerful political constituency that is invested in the perpetuation of the status quo. This constituency consists of both Democrats and Republicans, and it is an obstacle to those of us who think that missile defense programs should only be funded if they have proven themselves to be on the road to operationally-demonstrated effectiveness. Just because a program is in the parochial interests of a district or state, does not mean that U.S. taxpayers should pay for it.

2) In other news, the Pentagon recently announced that a $100 million GMD test scheduled for July has been delayed until at least October. The test was originally scheduled for April, was pushed back until July, and has now been delayed again. I don’t have much to say about this other than that it is simply further evidence of GMD's technological dubiousness.

3) Finally, the first Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile unit has been activated at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. THAAD is a ground-based missile defense system designed to destroy short- and medium- range ballistic missiles during the late-midcourse and terminal phases of flight.

One of the virtues of THAAD is that it is focused on the near-term threat posed by medium- and short-range ballistic missiles. This is why the House Armed Services Committee authorized $939.9 million for THAAD in FY 2009, an increase of $75 million over the Bush administration’s original request.

However, a key shortcoming of THAAD, is that on occasions where it is deployed to destroy targets outside the Earth’s atmosphere, it will be vulnerable to decoys and countermeasures.