In Defense of Freedom – Missile Defense

At the request of others I’m writing this article.  There are some important questions that come out of the debate for a strategic missile defense; particularly, if it is to be applied in Europe.   Such as what is our role in Europe? What is proper military strategy? What are the costs and benefits of various military operations? And undoubtedly much more.  Based on limited information I believe that missile defense facilities and operations in Europe is a wise and correct course of action.  It is neither a constitutional issue, economic, or political issue, but should be a military decision.

Before I begin the current U.S. strategy is to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic (if Obama doesn’t change the strategy).  The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was first envisioned by Ronald Reagan in the early 80′s (I think 1983 to be exact).  It evolved into the National Missile Defense project under Bill Clinton as it began to take a more concrete and operationally feasible form.  In 2002 George Bush put aside our ABM treaty with Russia and ordered a defense shield to be built.  What is important from this history is to see the bipartisan support of this project.  This alone should say something about it’s importance.  As of yet their is little to no indication I can find as to what direction President Obama is going to take on this issue although in his debate with McCain he said that he supported missile defense but wasn’t specific as to what that meant.  

Further, this is a military operation and should in my opinion exclude political and economic debate for the most part.  (I realize this is more difficult to do.)   Particularly when in previous discussions I have pointed out that the U.S. basically subsidized much of Europe’s socialist economiesthrough maintaining a strong military.   This is important but politically.  I don’t like the fact that this takes place but I do believe it is necessary in order to help secure international stability.   On the political side we should do more in terms of international propaganda to get a pay off politically for doing this.  But again this is on the political and diplomatic side of the equation and shouldn’t be a reason for or against a military operation.  In martial arts one is trained how to defend themselves from attacks and how to counter attack to defeat a threat.  But good martial arts training will also train one to see and defuse a potential attack through diplomatic means.  HOWEVER, one must be confident in ones ability to defend themselves before one can use diplomatic methods.  Only when one is capable of defending themselves will they have the confidence to refrain from violence as an initial response.  Our military is trained not to fire until fired upon.  The only reason why they are capable of this action is they have the confidence of all the various force multipliers offered to the U.S. military. 

The second issue is economics.  I think it is pretty clear as to why economics should remain out of the question.  The U.S. has vast resources and by all rights should be able to afford this project.   This may economically benefit Europe or it may economically benefit U.S. or both.  If it economically benefits Europe maybe there are additional concessions to be had or maybe it makes it more politically feasible to achieve a the military objective.   One of the core purposes of the U.S. government is to defend the freedoms we have.  If there is any money in the system military operations should be a priority.  There of course is much debate on this subject.  But economic freedom is worthless without social, religious, self expression, and all the other freedoms that are defended.   Further, the economic benefits are probably greater for U.S. self interest then others.  Even if their is no potential economic benefit to the U.S. directly or immediately there is indeed an economic benefit if we are better able to defend ourselves and our allies and this should be plain (i.e. what the debate then entails is how best to defend ourselves).  This has been known through the ages,

“If you want peace prepare for war.” 

and

“Always remember that it is much better to waste ammunition then lives.”

So, then the question becomes what should be solely a military question as to how best to prepare for war.  A question, I might first add, that I neither have the knowledge or ability to answer.  I lack much information on this subject from a intelligence perspective as I’m a regular Joe not privy to classified information that should be informing these decisions.  I’m sure there is much propaganda from all sides on this issue.   What I can do though is provide some key components of strategy that can be considered in evaluating defense strategies.  (Keeping in mind that probably anybody reading or writting this post isn’t informed enough to actually suggest a direct course of action.  At best I’m guessing at potential military benefits based on sets of principles I use in business from military history to ascertain an opinion on this subject.)

First, we have military missile defense based in the U.S. from my understanding already.  We also have strategic components of our NMD in the U.K. and we are building currently in Greenland.  The current debate is over “holes” in the NMD that are trying to be filled by placing components to the defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Why should the U.S. worry about holes in missile defense?  It has been said,

Next is the terrain.  It can be distant or near. It can be difficult or easy. It can be open or narrow. It also determines your life or death.  

A missile defense shield provides those that control it the ability to choose the battle ground over which war is fought.  Placing strategic components in Europe should make Europe a strategic target.  The U.S. would be extremely hard to defeat in battle attacked directly at sea or our mainland.  It would be easier to attack Europe first and capture strategic resources.  I would think this would make a battlefield in Europe more promising then a battlefield else where as it would open up missile attacks to a broader region allowing defense forces to be reduced prior to an invasion.  It also gives the U.S. a “right” to battle in other fields as opposed to in our homeland as we would be defending our own military installations.  (Now, politics can change but as politics can change so could we then dismantle our strategic facilities.)  

Second, while this is primarily a defense initiative it is a forward deployment which keeps America on the offensive.  One of the greatest military minds was apt to say,

No great battles are ever won on the defensive.

A forward missile defense shield seems like it would obey the military principle of intelligence, too.  One of the debates the Russian’s wage against the forward U.S. missile defense is that it is spy-ware in their region which supports my perspective even coming from the other side.   Therefore, if this is the case and we can win the debate politically and diplomatically a forward deployed system then supports the military principle of intelligence.  It has been said,

Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.  When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are equal.  If Ignorant of both your enemy and of yourself you are certain in every battle to be in peril.

Third, and probably most strongly, a broad based military defense supports most strongly the military principle of security.  In the battle of Chancellorsville General Hooker charged forward making no preparations to defend his right flank.  He thought victory laid only forwarded and in doing this he ignored the principle of security.   Stonewall Jackson at the direction of Robert E. Lee were able to exploit this opportunity and force the Union army back across the Rappahannock River in just a mere two days!   In a world where forces can be moved and deployed globally the U.S. flank is the entire globe. 

I think a debate against the missle defense shield must answer the debate as to what, in this day and age, is the U.S. flank?  I’d be interested to learn what the “BaldMan” thinks is our flank.  I think carrying forward a missle defense seems from the outside like good strategy.  Whether this will continue I do not know.  

What experience or study of military principles President Obama has and the amount of influence his military advisers have I do not know.   Obama has not proved to be a capable leader or a good manager as Chief Executive up to this point.  However, if he does change objectives I would like to hear a reason or explination as to why since I think he owes it to his previous predecessors visions of national security.

  UPDATE: Great Russia vs. U.S. debate here.  And even more great debate here.