AS we all know, there is such a thing as a good idea whose time has not yet come. This adage can hold even for presidents of the United States.
A case in point is the American proposal to establish a new ballistic missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic. The system — which would complement the one established in recent years in California and Alaska — is intended primarily to protect Europe and America from a missile launched from the Middle East. It is in principle a worthy idea, but the military benefits in the short term are not worth the worsening of relations with Russia that it has already engendered.
Rather than push the idea now, when the threat of long-range missiles from the Middle East is hardly acute, it would be better to allow a new American president and a new Russian president — Vladimir Putin is barred by his country’s Constitution from running again next year — to reconsider the subject in 2009 or 2010.
What is it with O'Hanlon? I am continually amazed that a man who on the surface appears reasonable and is surely quite educated (more than me, certainly) can repeatedly come up with really daft ideas. Time and again I read something of his and wonder just what the heck is he going on about?
So the threat from Iran now isn't acute? When do we know it will be acute, and explain to me how we just put missile defenses in a box to be stored in the basement until that threat arises? This thing has to be developed, tested, and built. We are in a race against potential enemy capabilities right now, and holding off on our end of the race is purely foolish.
As for the Russians, is O'Hanlon saying that the Russians are justified in worrying about our proposed missile defenses? If so, why would a new Russian president reconsider opposition?
If the Russians aren't justified in worrying about ten defensive missiles, why are the Russians raising a stink and why should we care? If not missiles, it will be something else that the Russians use to stoke a crisis--like maybe moving an old Soviet monument. Face it, the Russians are acting aggressive and difficult not because we've done something wrong but because of their difficulty of coming to grips with the end of their Eastern European empire. Or maybe they're just pining for the glory days of the Cold War when threats from Moscow prompted crises and UN Security Council meetings. Sometimes the problem really is them and not us.
And if the threat from Middle East missiles becomes acute and the Russians still don't like the idea of putting anti-missiles in "their" former colonies of Eastern Europe, will O'Hanlon then support missile defenses? And can we restart the development after shutting it down? In time to meet what we presumably recognize as an acute threat? (I swear, the Left can't use the word "imminent" any more--too much baggage I guess)
Here's another saying for O'Hanlon to consider: "A day late and a dollar short." It applies even to Brookings Institution fellows or whatever he is.
My apologies for breaking my Times DeSelect policy to link to the NYT, but this piece was just so daft that I couldn't bear to ignore it. Seriously, what is with O'Hanlon?
