The Globe and Mail September 12, 2001
So much for that missile shield
By Geoffrey York
Moscow -- Within minutes of yesterday's terrorist attacks in New York City
and Washington, U.S. defence officials were facing their first volley of
tough questions. Why were they pouring massive resources into a
high-technology shield against ballistic missiles, rather than the less
glamorous task of protecting America from old-fashioned terrorism?
The questions came from journalists in Moscow, where two high-ranking
Pentagon strategists had just spent another fruitless day in their campaign
to persuade the Kremlin to abandon its opposition to the anti-missile
scheme.
By coincidence, the devastating assault on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon was erupting at precisely the moment when the two Pentagon
officials were walking into a press briefing at the end of their latest
negotiations with Russian military officials on the missile issue.
The symbolism was stark. While the Pentagon was preoccupied in Moscow with
the task of seeking foreign support for a hugely expensive missile shield of
uncertain effectiveness, a band of terrorists had found a much easier way to
penetrate the heart of America. Without any need for intercontinental
missiles or nuclear technology, the terrorists had simply hijacked a few
passenger airliners and steered them into big buildings.
The missile shield, which is expected to cost at least $60-billion (U.S.)
even by preliminary estimates, has swiftly become the top international
priority for George W. Bush, who has been forced to drop other foreign
issues to concentrate on defusing the Russian and Chinese opposition to the
missile scheme -- not to mention the skepticism of his European and Canadian
allies.
Critics have always noted that the missile shield would be useless against
the cheapest and easiest methods of terrorism. It provides no protection
against a suitcase bomb, a small nuclear device smuggled into American
waters in a rowboat, a chemical or biological weapon, or an old-fashioned
plane hijacking or suicide bombing.
Yesterday's catastrophic attacks will undoubtedly strengthen the hand of
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been arguing for years that
Washington should join him in a global fight against Islamic terrorism,
rather than promoting a dubious scheme to shoot down ballistic missiles.
A missile shield is aimed at states with enough resources to mount a
ballistic missile program. Only a handful of "rogue" states (Iran, Iraq,
Libya and North Korea) are seen as having the resources and the fanaticism
to contemplate a missile attack on the United States. Washington was willing
to use nuclear deterrence (the doctrine of mutually assured destruction) to
discourage Soviet missile attacks during the Cold War. It was never entirely
clear why an Iraqi or Libyan leader would be more suicidal than a Soviet
leader, since a massive American nuclear counterstrike would certainly cause
the destruction of any country foolish enough to fire a missile at the
United States.
At yesterday's briefing in Moscow, after the first news of the New York
attacks, the Pentagon officials were peppered with questions about their
defence strategy. The new skeptical mood was clear. Journalists from the two
biggest establishment newspapers -- The New York Times and The Wall Street
Journal -- were the most aggressive in questioning the Bush administration's
strategy of devoting new resources to a missile shield rather than
anti-terrorism measures.
"If a rogue nation can circumvent this shield to deliver a blow to the
United States, do you not see the relevance of what happened today to the
conceptual flaws of the shield?" one correspondent asked.
The Pentagon officials were obliged to mount another defence of their plans
for a missile shield. "I don't think it's fair to say that a system designed
for a specific purpose is flawed because it doesn't accomplish something
it's not designed to do," said Douglas Feith, the U.S. undersecretary of
defence. "If airplanes hit the World Trade Center, that's not what the
missile defence system is designed to protect against."
The second official, assistant secretary of defence J. D. Crouch, tried
another tack. "You're saying, essentially, that if you're trying to prevent
a burglary, and the back-door lock is jammed, you might as well leave your
front door open as well. We have got a whole range of threats to deal with,
and we have different programs to deal with those threats. We spend billions
of dollars on improving our capabilities to deal with the terrorist threat.
A missile launched at New York City, particularly one carrying a weapon of
mass destruction, would cause far more damage than what is being reported in
New York today."
A few minutes later, the briefing was suddenly cut short, and the Pentagon
officials were whisked out of the room. But the questions lingered in the
air behind them.
