By Dave Anderson:
USA Today reports that the Obama Administration is massively scaling back the European deployment of ground based interceptors and targetting radars for missile defense:
This is not a surprise, as the system is unproven, expensive as hell, and mostly unwanted in Europe. The Polish and Czech governments were willing hosts as it was an expression of stronger security guarantees from the United States. The major NATO allies are indifferent at best to the possibility of a handful of theoretical, 'in 5 years from now' Iranian IRBMs as both the United Kingdom and France maintain a more than credible second strike capacity. Russia is actively opposed to the deployment as they are worried that their near abroad is being encroached upon, and that a scaled-up version of missile defense that may or may not actually work would imperil their second strike capacity to deter.
I think this can partially be tied into the new metrics and argument to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Russia has been greatly expanding its importance as a logistics corridor for US forces in Afghanistan. Recently, Russia has begun to allow US Air Force transports to overfly Russian airspace while carrying lethal supplies; this is a major shift. NATO has been running non-lethal supply trains across Russian territory for most of this year as well.
If the US commits another 30,000 to 40,000 troops, US supply needs will greatly increase. As part of the strategy that requires the reinforcements, the US will be pissing off lots of Pakistani interests. This would strongly suggest that the Karachi-Peshwar-Khyber-Kabul supply line will not be reliable or open at times. Alternative supply routes are needed and the two alternatives are either through Iranian port of Chabahar to Herat, or through some portion of Russia. Addressing a Russian concern in return for increased logistic support is a reasonable trade-off.
You forgot to mention that Michael Goldfarb is an idiot.
ReplyDelete