FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush’s Star Wars Credibility Problem

Without fanfare, the Department of Defense has revised and substantially changed the most important missile defense announcement to come out of a US administration in the last decade. In a variety of ways, these revisions effectively lower the bar for what will be expected of the upcoming deployment, while simultaneously allowing the Pentagon to enjoy the more expansive and robust view of capabilities widely publicized in the press.

On December 17th, President Bush announced to the nation that the United States would begin fielding initial missile defense capabilites in 2004-2005. His announcement was accompanied that same day by much-reported press conferences involving most of the major missile defense players in the administration: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, Director of the Missile Defense Agency General Ronald Kadish, and Assistant Secretary of Defense J.D. Crouch. With much publicity, the speakers touted the missile defense deployment announcement and praised the “layered” missile defense approach. A press release from the Defense Department laid out the plan in detail. The deployment plans were rolled out in print and television media, using the press conferences and the press release as resources.

Indeed, a scan of the US press following December 17th reveals wide coverage of the announcement activities, including in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, and others. However, the facts and details for much of their stories–their coverage of the biggest missile defense story in recent history–were taken from a press release that really no longer exists, because it’s been replaced by the Defense Department with a different version on their website. The Defense Department has never issued a retraction or a correction notice to the media or the public regarding these changes, and instead has chosen only to modify the December 17 document. The original version of the press release is no longer available.

A careful reading of the current news release on the Pentagon’s website shows substantial changes to the stated goals of one of the three systems to be deployed and eliminates all references to an overall “layered” system, which has been a hallmark of this administration’s missile defense efforts. The new version also strikes references to the use of “prototype and test assets.”

The layered system envisioned for missile defense and outlined in the original press release envisions a series of overlapping, redundant programs, each of which would be able to take a shot in an effort to destroy an enemy missile from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. In this way, a missile defense interceptor that misses the enemy missile in the boost phase (soon after it’s launched) would be backed up by a mid-course interceptor, and subsequently perhaps a terminal phase interceptor as well. This approach system would enhance the effectiveness of the overall system just by virtue of the number of attempts.

But while the original press release portrays the 2004-2005 deployment within the framework of a layered system, the revised version envisions a much less ambitious plan. The only system potentially capable of knocking out a missile launched at the United States from North Korea or Iran is the ground-based midcourse system. The other two systems – Patriot and Aegis sea-based – are only theater systems, i.e., only useful against short-range missiles. While the original press release touts the sea-based Aegis system as a “boost and ascent phase” system (ostensibly part of the layered approach), the altered release changes this being a mid-course system for “short and medium range ballistic missiles,” reducing it’s capabilities in a layered system.

All of the changes suggest a lowering of abilities, a simplicity, and a thinness that is strikingly different from the original release. The effect of this exercise is that the press, and therefore the public, are initially given the impression of a missile defense program that sounds remarkably robust and capable. A month later, a corrected version revealing a much different reality is dropped in the bowels of the Defense Department website, where it will qualify as “updated,” but essentially unexamined.

A spokesperson from the Missile Defense Agency said that he was not aware of the changes and that the press release had been put together by the Defense Department. He also stated that it was unusual for the Defense Department to modify a press release so substantially without issuing a separate retraction. He went on to say that although the original press release could have been a mistake, it would be highly unlikely given the amount of attention and personal involvement by multiple people at the very top of the U.S. government. A call to the Defense Department has not yet been returned.

Critics of the administration’s missile defense deployment have argued that the current approach is long on talk and short on proof. With the discovery of the changes scaling back the deployment announcement, it would seem as though the Pentagon agrees. They just don’t want to hold a press conference to say so.

MATT MARTIN is Assistant Director of the Missile Defense Project
at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC. He can be reached at: mmartin@armscontrolcenter.org

For a comparison of the two different press releases, go to the Center’s website: www.armscontrolcenter.org/

 

More articles by:
September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail