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missile defense story in recent history–were taken from a press release that really no longer exists, because it’s been replaced by the Defense Department with a different version on their website.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:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail