When you’re working to govern an entire nation, you can’t please everyone. Particularly people with highly particular political preferences; they tend to be the most prickly when disappointed (though you’d think they’d get used to it). So it’s a rare joy when a political figure does something that seems eminently sensible and pleasing, and with Obama’s announcement on missile defense he has done just that. Since the U.S.’s incredibly expensive white elephant of an anti-ballistic missile defense system is just so cost-effective, the Bush Administration decided to install some in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect Europe from an entirely hypothetical (and completely terrifying, I’m sure) Iranian missile threat. It was going to be very expensive, of dubious effectiveness, and would antagonize the Russians. Obama is replacing it with ship-based anti-missile systems in the Mediterranean.
Now, apparently some conservatives see the irking-Russia thing as a feature rather than a bug. I don’t particularly understand this. The Russians are kind of sensitive about American military installations near their borders, and I can understand how they might be more sensitive about it when the main objective seems to actually be spiting Russia. On the other hand, we gained very little advantage from having it, and lose very little by giving it up, since we hadn’t spent a dime on the sites yet. Oh, and rather than betraying our allies, the allies in question don’t really want it. Finally, it’ll probably be more effective. We’re switching from very problematic and untested terminal-stage systems which target a missile re-entering the atmosphere at Mach 25 to more proven systems which hit a much slower missile while lifting off. I can’t really think of any way in which this is not a good decision.
I’m just curious what the Russians agreed to give us for it. Good work, Obama!
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.