President Obama’s decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is entirely a political one - in order to appease Russia. This decision is a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its near-abroad. It represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and in future, America’s allies will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises.
It also leaves the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic - Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic - were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama has said he will now pursue will not satisfy those criteria.
Neither has Washington secured any great concession from Russia. There is scant evidence that Moscow intends to deliver anything credible in return for Washington’s abandonment of the Third Site, especially with regard to the growing Iranian threat. There is equally little indication that the Obama Administration’s risky policy of engagement with Iran is working either.
The decision – to concentrate resources defending against short range missiles and not field defenses against long range missile attacks – makes no sense. To be truly strategic about national and international security, the United States must defend against current and future threats. Presenting a choice between defending against short or long range missile attack is a false one. Ballistic missile threats can emerge with little advanced warning, and as Admiral Mike Mullen (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) recently stated, Iran has already amassed sufficient uranium to build an atomic bomb.
Defending against short-range missile attack is hugely important. But it can not come at the expense of protecting America and Europe from other threats. At present Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attack while America only has limited defenses against such an attack. This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.
This is a loss-leader for President Obama: a strategic loss, a security loss, a diplomatic loss and a major loss for America’s prestige on the world stage.
Congress has increased its focus on the war in Afghanistan as the Obama Administration fine tunes its new counterinsurgency strategy. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he supported “a properly resourced, classically pursued counterinsurgency effort.” Mullen acknowledged that “a properly-resourced counterinsurgency probably needs more forces – and without question more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance.”
But it is unclear whether Congress has the patience and fortitude to support the deployment of more U.S. troops. Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee, stressed that a surge in Afghan army and police forces should be a higher priority than any surge of American forces and called for an acceleration in the growth of Afghan security forces: “I believe these steps should be urgently implemented before we consider a further increase in U.S. ground combat troops beyond what is already planned to be deployed by the end of the year.” Senator Levin advocated some good ideas, including almost doubling the size of the Afghan army and police to 250,000 and 160,000 personnel respectively.
But this expansion is a necessary complement, not an adequate substitute, for greater U.S. military efforts. Moreover, more U.S. troops would be needed to train, advise, and partner with Afghan army forces or the rapidly expanding Afghan forces would not be effective. And it will take considerable time to recruit, equip, train, and deploy such Afghan forces. But decisive American steps are needed urgently to salvage the precarious security situation in Afghanistan.
As Senator John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee noted at the hearing: “I strongly disagree with the wait-and-see recommendation that we should deploy no additional U.S. combat forces to Afghanistan until this action has been taken. I believe that this position would repeat the nearly catastrophic mistakes of Iraq and significantly set back the vital war effort in Afghanistan.”
After the Obama Administration digests the classified report prepared by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it should take decisive action to give U.S. military leaders the troops and resources needed to carry out the Administration’s promising counterinsurgency strategy. Calls for the formation of an Afghanistan Study Group to further mull over the Administration’s strategy would be counterproductive to the extent that it would postpone urgent decisions on troop levels and jeopardize the prospects for success.
The Iraq Study Group was convened after it became clear that the Bush Administration’s initial policy in Iraq had failed and needed to be reformulated. But the Obama Administration’s strategy, which entails a shift to a counterinsurgency effort that puts a premium on protection of Afghan civilians, has not been fully resourced or implemented yet. And the Administration cannot afford to sit around and await the report of an outside study group.
What is needed in Afghanistan is not more study, but systematic action to implement past studies. President Obama must exercise firm presidential leadership to explain forcefully to Congress and the American people what is at risk in Afghanistan and the urgent need to give his military commanders the support that they need to successfully carry out his administration’s new Afghanistan policy.