• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Shameful Surrender: Today's Missile Defense Decision

    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.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    41 Responses to Shameful Surrender: Today's Missile Defense Decision

    1. J. Hughes, Texas says:

      There you have it, an ACORN backed community organizer with no foreign policy or military experience. Is the nation crazy for electing this guy to head our nation's defenses? I'll have to say yes. And to all those liberal projectionist, the best thing about Obama is the color of his skin. It's refreshing to see Americans of African ancestry in the White House. But like Carter, a misinformed Caucasian, it's Obama's reckless policies that are so damned troubling.

    2. DamnWilcox, Californ says:

      Let me preface by saying I'm not a big fan of Obama but this is the first sensible foreign policy move I've seen by his administration. This article reads like we are still in the Cold War and as a person who saw it end as a child and whose family is from the Eastern European region I would not want to see it flare back up.

      As conservatives we must be careful in not asking for wild eyed fantasies like fiscal conservatism and in the same breath a grow in military spending.

    3. Tom Jones says:

      "This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees."

      No, it really doesn't. In fact, I didn't see anything that remotely suggested that the administration pulled back from either their commitment to NATO or to Article V. Is there any evidence whatsoever for this claim?

      Moreover, to suggest that this missile defense pact is the foundation upon which Article V now rests begs the question, what about those nations that are without a missile defense system, like for example, the Baltics? Should they too have an additional line of defense so to strengthen their nexus to an Article V commitment? And if that is indeed the case (as they argue behind closed doors) then NATO is a lot worse off than many of us could have possibly imagined.

      This system was a mistake from the beginning, not the least of which was because its true purpose had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Iran. The Poles and the Czechs wanted a tripwire against the Russians, and the U.S. wanted to embarrass the Bear after they destroyed the army of that selfish thug in Georgia. To suggest otherwise is either naive or foolish. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to determine which one.

      Without a doubt, this administration has compounded an ill advised move by embarrassing our NATO allies…But the use of terms such as "surrender" really fails to grasp the mistake that was made here. What they were trying to do was cut a deal on Iran, but as some of us understand, that opportunity disappeared in 2003 when the VPs office told the Swiss to go to hell. I'm sure Mr. Cheney continues to have no regrets as Iran is now on an unstoppable track to produce enough fissionable material to build a crude weapon. Either way both sides have blown it, and the American people are once again the losers caught in yet another pointless food fight.

      Rather than trying to make headlines with language like this, might I suggest that you spend 15 minutes of your day doing an iota of real analysis. In addition to the points that I raise above, you might also discover that Iranian technology doesn't currently allow them (and probably won't for at least a decade or more) to use HEU in a warhead on top of an ICBM. That remains a pretty tough thing to do even for those nations that have already tested (Pakistan and North Korea come to mind).

      But those are just simply facts, and when have facts ever gotten in the way of a really good idea?

    4. Pingback: Shameful Surrender: Today’s Missile Defense Decision « Prayer, News & Action

    5. Tucanofulano Califor says:

      So Mr Obama caves in to Mr Putin, again. All well and good for Mr Obama, but how about USA taxpayers ? Well, Mr Obama certainly cares about Americans and others in the free world, doesn't he ? After all, Mr Obama does have access to a deep underground bunker at an undisclosed location.

      What do you have ?

    6. Charles E. Jones- Li says:

      Being a black ex serviceman, I feel cheated and disturbe that President Obama uses his power to hurt and further disarm our country. I feel as a lone person of one that he is truly and madman with no regards to human values or safety. I strongly feel that a person of his character should be led out to pasture the way befitting of an over thrown dictator. I believe that he is driving America and America to a point in history that American will no longer exist in any shape or form of her liberties or the home of the brave. Tearing down our missle defense is only the start. He would like nothing more than to have America totally defenseless and the hands of those that would enslave us. There will come a day when thing will not be as they seem and we will have to learn a new language but there are those in thousands of little tea parties that will fight for the right that our forefathers fought and died for. There were a few blacks who fought beside them died for their beleifs and suffered at the hands of the aggressors. Freedom is precious and delicate. I was never envolved in a political fight than I am now. As the saying goes…Whatever it takes to get the job done and whatever sacrifices that will have to be made. This article rings true. Any military person will tell you, if you let your defenses down, you will have to pay the price for it.

    7. Pingback: that hero - do gooder

    8. Steve Jelinek, Minne says:

      I stood watch over Minuteman III missiles during the President Carter administration. Shortly after my tour of duty a weak administration was replaced by the Reagan administration. Over the years I always wondered if the Soviets had regrets for not being more aggressive during the Carter administration. Now they have been given a second chance with the Obama administration.

    9. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Well said Steve J.

      Bravo Zulu on your service to country.

    10. Eric, Port St Lucie says:

      This is so insane, Can someone tell me if I can sue the goverment for wrongful death of all the Americans (including several members of my immediate family) who were drafted (against their will but they went willingly anyway) and died fighting against Nazi'ism, Socialism, and Communisim, just to have the Obama administration cozy up to dictators and tyrants and enable the rebuilding of the Iron Curtain these brave Americans tore down.We WON the Cold War. And now after all that he is capitulating and giving back the power to those we defeated? Apologising for Americas arrogance that we had there nerve and arrogance to invade France and screw up the Nazis plans, who do we think we are? This is not the America my family spilled our blood for. Where is the Constitution and the checks and balances? HELP!!!!

    11. John Thurman, San An says:

      I very much appreciate receiving Morningbell. I spent 25 years in a marketing career at a major company during their glory days. I noticed the daily and even the emphasized buzz never ever captured the important issue of the moment. You are hinting at it, but, in my opinion, you aren’t driving it home. There just isn’t any issue any more important than national defense. I’m tempted to modify that by emphasizing missile defense, but that underrates terrorism attacks, border security, etc. It’s just National Defense and Obama, the mainstream media and the conservative media are allowing the ebbs and flows of dominant thought to skew the discussion off into the racial abyss, which just simply states the Demo’s see their agenda failing. One air pop nuclear bomb blast anywhere over the county will render all electronic gear useless. That means total instant paralysis of the entire country. Ouch. And that is easily possible right now.

      Thanks for doing what you can to at least call attention to the issue that surely must be the most critical.

    12. Don, Michigan says:

      I second that Steve J and JC Hughes. Obama, in my opinion, is the most dangerous president in history.

    13. dick park, houston, says:

      I am alifelong conservative but I applaud President Obama's decision to cancel the land based defensive installation and to rely on a similar strategy but one based on ships. Ships are after all a moving target. Secondly, as I age, I'm coming to the belief that as long as we maintain a powerful military no country in this world will attack us. Finally we don't need to be out there doing nation building and interfering with other cultures. Leave 'em be.

    14. Jeanne Stotler, wood says:

      Thanks to you who have served. We must remember a Nation is only as strong as it's defenses, I wonder why this administration is determined to weake this country. While taking a hard look at ACORN we might want to seek why Obama is selling us out.

    15. John Cincinnati Ohi says:

      It is regretful to again see mr. oboma treat this great country so badly. I hope all those who voted for him has learned a lesson.

    16. Jerry from Chicago says:

      We know that Russia has very much wanted the US to pull back its missle defense system in Eastern Europe. Would it be too much to ask what we got from Russia in return?

      Could Mr. Obama have obtained pledges from Russia to hold Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons in check? I would like to think so, but based on his track record to date, it is most likely that the US got nothing in return for its unilateral disarmament.

      To Charles Jones, Live Oak, TX. I couldn't agree more with what you have said. And by the way, thank you for your service to our country.

    17. Tom Jones says:

      Mr. Park,

      I'm afraid that nation building is going to continue, not the least of which is because liberals, and now "conservatives" like the Heritage Foundation support it with open arms.

      What ever happened to the institution that warned the American people about our efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo? Now, the Heritage Foundation is as excited about inserting America in every little global squabble as the Brookings Institution.

      As much as they like to look to Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher, I can't believe that either or those giants would have supported a strategy that may very well result in twin defeats in a span of less than 5 years (Iraq and Afghanistan).

      Actions have consequences, and given the analysis that we've seen supporting those actions from the Heritage Foundation, one wonders if there is anyone in those hallowed halls that is prepared to learn from their mistakes as opposed to rushing into battle once again.

    18. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      Dick Park. Every here of Iran. It doesn't take a "powerful military". Just One out of control

      dictator with a nuke on an ICBM. You and Tom Jones are an Obama dream. Any yes Tom, Iran does have both NOW!

    19. Ben Franklin, IN says:

      WOW. I am amazed at the creeping isolationism present in some comments here. The Russians, while not exactly the sworn enemies they once were, are definitely strategic rivals. Either way, they have NO SAY in what we decide to do with regards to our own national defense, or that of our allies. Both Poland and the Czech Republic are in NATO, and they are willing to have us deploy this defensive system on their soil for use against ANYONE who might launch a ballistic missile at Europe or the U.S. Look at a GLOBE people – all the guys who have, or want to have, the weapons to do this would fire them right over top of Eastern Europe. What folly.

    20. Dean F. St.Croix Fal says:

      In my lifetime Carter was the worst Pesident now Obama will win that prize. Have we not learned a thing in 30 years.

    21. fred l. hood sr. de says:

      I think back to the two years I spent in Vietnam.

      I believed at the time and still do it was worth

      the fight against communism. My government thought

      differently,and pulled our troops.Knowing exactly

      what would be in store for the south vietnamese.

      2 million+ people killed by the north vietnamese

      communist. This missile defense desision is another country being thrown under the bus by an

      administration unable to funtion properly……

    22. Christian Rosas, Was says:

      Why are we so worried about the withdrawal of the missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic? We need to change our mindset and see things from all perspectives, not only from our own. We would not like another foreign country to come and plant defense system in our neighboring countries, why then should we? Is not like the United States is obligated to be the World's cop. We need to respect other countries policies and relations. Why keep looking backwards and keep the same position as the cold war. We do not own the world. And we are not the only ones with the crown that permits us to build nuclear weapons and develop. All countries should be given the same opportunity. We are all humans, and we need to respect our neighbors whether we agree with their way of thinking or not. As a foreigner I see this move of President Obama as one that will eventually create greater bonds with the world. Is easy sometimes for us to assume how the world feels, but why dont we ask the world how they feel. I have friends from all around the world, and most people are building greater respect for the United States than with President Bush. Let us continue seeking paths of peace and relation, instead of threat or invasion of foreign matters.

    23. John Roane Sarasota says:

      I always like to see if there is a little good in something I don't care for. In this case it might be a good lesson to our so called allies in Europe. the next time Russia or anyone else is looking in there direction and licking their chops maybe, just maybe, without us and our defense systems there , the Europeans might start to make better decisions about how bad and unfair we Americans are.

    24. John R - Philadelphi says:

      I's with Dick Park from TX. I trace my Conservative roots to my vote for Barry Goldwater. This whole system was nothing more than a gift to the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. Again we have all the military gear we need to make any one who attacks us pay a very high penalty.

      We need to get rid of this hubris and understand it is not up to us to bring democracy to the whole world. Help influence and protect our interest, but let them do it.

    25. Jeanne Wong, San Die says:

      Thank you Charles Jones in TX for your service to your country and for your comments which I totally agree with!

    26. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      When you abandon your friends, all you hav left is yur enemies.


    27. Linda Carlsbad, CA says:

      So far the decisions this administration has made have been against everything that we represent. We made a promise, we should keep it. What worries me, he has cut our own long range missile system! Why is he not protecting America and Europe? Does his agenda, that we don't know about have something to do with the US and Europe being vulnerable?

    28. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Rosas in D.C., I believe you were featured at the beginning of the movie "Mars Attacks".

    29. Tom Jones says:

      Lloyd, you're wrong. There's really no ther way to put it. Moreover, Iran doesn't have a viable ICBM at the present time. Do yourself a favor and look it up. Finally, please refer to my comment where I criticize the Obama administration for embarassing our NATO allies. I can't imagine they'd take too kindly to that. But then again, when have facts ever trumped emotions. If it makes you feel better to think that my analysis is pro Administration because I disagree with you, then I suppose you time is better served in an echo chamber.

      Ben Franklin, creeping isolationism? What does that mean? Is it creeping isolationism when someone suggests that Russia ought not help out Mr. Chavez with his nuclear power plants because it might bring them into an unnecessary conflict with the United States? Or is isolationism reserved for individuals that don't think that the United States ought to do things that run completely counter to our interests? Funny you should use Ben Franklin as your tag line as he was one of our Nation's first foreign policy realists. I can't imagine that he would have seen either the previous or the current administration's policy's on this system as anything but counterproductive to US interests.

    30. Claude Cornell says:

      When you are fighting a war you should never put a far-left liberal in as commander-in-chief. They are all doves. But there is a reason we haven't won a war since WW11. Congress can never stay out of the way. Generals are the ones who need to be fighting the wars, not politicians.

    31. Rhoda Sue Hatcher ; says:

      Ok,all I can think of are all of the PEOPLE who fought and died for this GREAT COUNTRY,all of the PEOPLE who came into this COUNTRY to live a free life,all of the beautiful LIFEFORMS on this MAJESTIC PLANET…NOW,just think of the movies, like "Mad Max",among others,FICTIONAL ???

    32. Pingback: Obama abandons Poland and the Czech Republic in order to appease Russia « Wintery Knight Blog

    33. B.Smith, Knoxville, says:

      Something I have not seen covered…Can the president unilaterally cancel an international agreement? Where is our "balance of power?"

    34. Bob R Geologist, Tuc says:

      Obama hasn't made a friend out of Russia removing defensive missles from eastern Europe. He has made a patsy out of the USA. Now, all our enemies have to do is wait until he gives away the store. This guy is naive beyond belief. I always have thought that Teddy Rosevelt had it about right with the admonition to "walk softly but carry a big stick."

    35. Christian Rosas, Was says:

      J.C Hughes, what is your point?

    36. Christian Rosas, Was says:

      J.C Hughes from Texas, what is your point?

    37. Pingback: Lisbon Adds To Prague’s Tough Week | Conservative Principles Now

    38. Sally McNamara Sally McNamara says:

      A New EU-Backed Berlin Wall:


    39. Pingback: Can Biden Repair the Blight? | Conservative Principles Now

    40. Pingback: Obama is popular in Europe but is not serving U.S. interests | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    41. Pingback: Obama Popular in Europe, but He’s Not Doing Much for U.S. Interests Abroad | Conservative Principles Now

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.