« | »

WP Gives Obama Cover On Missile Shield

From Mr. Obama’s tireless lickspittle slaveys at the Washington Post:

Missile Defense’s Shelving Reflected Military’s Concerns

Cost, Speed of Response Were Issues

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Monday, September 21, 2009

Call it another revolt of the generals. More than 13 years ago, the nation’s military leaders told civilian defense officials they wanted to limit spending on missile defenses and to emphasize the protection of forces deployed overseas over defense of the American homeland against a long-range missile threat.

Last week, after a lengthy internal Pentagon review and against the backdrop of new limits on overall military spending, the generals again threw their weight behind a relative contraction of the effort to defend against long-range missile attacks. They cited needed budgetary savings and more immediate threats in demanding faster work to protect overseas forces and bases against shorter-range attack.

The latest shift shelved a plan to deploy in Europe an advanced radar and interceptors of long-range missiles by 2017. And it adds impetus to the Pentagon’s request earlier this year for a cut of about 15 percent in overall missile defense spending, a scaling back of the deployment of long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California, and the cancellation of three costly Reagan-era missile defense programs that officials say had threatened to balloon out of budgetary control.

"I believe what’s happening is what you witnessed happening in the Clinton years," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and a longtime critic of the focus on national missile defense. "The military never liked this stuff; they were willing to support it as long as the budget was increasing, as the president’s pet rock. But as soon as the budget starts contracting, they’re willing to throw this overboard."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday emphasized that defense of the U.S. homeland remains a priority, and that some related research is being expanded even as deployments are being deferred. Gates, after touring the Alaska site in June, expressed confidence that its interceptors could field an attack from North Korea.

But last week’s announcement is clearly another step in a steady evolution of the $125 billion program’s central focus from President Ronald Reagan’s grand vision of a national shield, popularly known as Star Wars, to a more limited defense of U.S. assets in foreign theaters

Technical obstacles, as well as political shifts, have dictated the downward slope of the program’s ambitions.

As the Cold War ended in the late 1980s and Iraqi Scud missiles rained on U.S. and allied military targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel during the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, the space-based smart rocks and chemical or nuclear-pumped lasers that galvanized Reagan’s excitement and ignited fierce technical controversy at the outset of the Strategic Defense Initiative were abandoned as impractical, unnecessary and inappropriate.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton added new emphasis to theater missile defenses in an entity he renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. But the simmering financial resentments of uniformed officers found voice in a 1996 decision by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a top decision-making group headed by one of Cartwright’s predecessors on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The group declared bluntly that the missile defense budget should be constrained to "save dollars that can be given back to the Services to be used for critical recapitalization programs."

North Korea’s 1998 launch of a Taepo Dong missile over Japan helped provoke Congress to enact the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which ordered the deployment "as soon as is technologically possible" of a homeland defense.

But former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard C. Clarke said the Bush administration took that idea and ran too far with it. Clarke faulted Bush’s other national security aides for caring more about reinvigorating national missile defense than about al-Qaeda.

Bush upgraded the program by placing it under the control of an independent agency, exempt from normal Pentagon oversight and regulations meant to compel a rigorous weighing of its merits against the value of other defense programs. "I am committed to deploying a missile defense system as son as possible to protect the American people and our deployed forces," Bush said as he abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.

But his expansion of the annual missile defense budget from $3.7 billion to an all-time high of $9 billion in 2007 provoked controversy inside and outside the Pentagon. So did his deployment of long-range missile interceptors in a system that the Pentagon’s testing office said did not offer "a high degree of confidence in its limited capabilities."

Military resentment at the program’s special treatment was expressed in an August 2008 study by the Pentagon-funded Institute for Defense Analyses. It called for "increased interaction between the MDA and other relevant parts of DOD" — a polite way of demanding the program pay more attention to real-world military needs and applications.

The defense budget realities also changed this year, as Obama made clear that the department will enjoy a growth of only a few percent annually in the coming years. Gates decided to review the program more rigorously and to cancel three legacies of the Reagan era: a complex airborne laser and what are known as the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, each aimed mostly at defending against medium- or long-range missile threats.

Of the airborne laser, Gates said: "I don’t know anybody at the Department of Defense . . . who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed." He described the latter, which had once been intended for deployment by 2010, as one of several missile defense concepts that were "fatally flawed . . . [or] sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."

A spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said that even with last week’s decision to concentrate more resources on an earlier deployment of defenses against Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles, spending related to long-range threats would still remain between a quarter and a third of the nation’s overall effort.

But as a senior military official told reporters at the White House, the reason the administration’s decision came last week is that the military services are "building their budgets" for fiscal year 2011. The newly revamped program, he said, "costs less to develop and field and operate."

Alas, this is a textbook example of how our mainstream media lie to us every day to protect their agenda and their masters in the Democrat Party, and now Mr. Obama.

There is precious little in the entire article to support its headline or the article’s endless claims about “resentment.”

In fact, the evidence supporting the charge boils down to two sentences. First, this assertion:

Military resentment at the program’s special treatment was expressed in an August 2008 study by the Pentagon-funded Institute for Defense Analyses. It called for "increased interaction between the MDA and other relevant parts of DOD" — a polite way of demanding the program pay more attention to real-world military needs and applications.

Which is in actuality no evidence of what the Post is claiming at all that we can see.

So the entire premise of the article hinges on this one quote, allegedly taken from a 1996 report the President Clinton’s Joint Chiefs Of Staff:

But the simmering financial resentments of uniformed officers found voice in a 1996 decision by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a top decision-making group headed by one of Cartwright’s predecessors on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The group declared bluntly that the missile defense budget should be constrained to "save dollars that can be given back to the Services to be used for critical recapitalization programs."

Nevermind that this quote was undoubtedly supplied to the Washington Post by the ultra radical Joseph Cirincione, of the Soros funded ‘Ploughshares Fund.’

Indeed, the only online record of this quote come from an editorial from the Boston Globe written by the very same Mr. Cirincione, from back March 20, 1997:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff last year advised spending no more than $500 million a year researching such a system and no more than $2.3 billion for developing theater defenses against short-range missiles like Scuds. They urged a “balanced and proportional’” program that could meet war-fighting needs and still “save dollars that can be given back to the services to be used for critical recapitalization programs.”

But even if this quote is accurate and not wrenched out of context, it is likely the Joint Chiefs were toeing the Clinton line at the time to protect their jobs and pensions. Just as Messrs. Gates and Cartwright are doing today.

And even if the quote is accurate, it is a far cry from the outrage and “resentment” that the Washington Post is claiming the military felt about missile defense.

After all, $3 billion dollars for research is not chicken feed. (At least it wasn’t until the age of Obama.)

But the Post is simply taking dictation from the ultra radical Mr. Cirincione, of the Ploughshares Fund.

Not that The Post needed much coaxing, since they, like the rest of our media masters, will say anything to give cover to their leader. No matter how dangerous his decisions.

For the record, here is some background on Mr. Cirincione organization, via Discover The Networks:

PLOUGHSHARES FUND

Established in 1981 by Sally Lilienthal, the Ploughshares Fund describes itself as "a public grantmaking foundation that supports initiatives to prevent the spread and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and other weapons of war, and to prevent conflicts that could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction." It also opposes America’s development of a missile defense system.

According to its website, between 1981 and 2005 Ploughshares made grants totaling more than $40 million, "to become the largest grantmaking foundation in the U.S. focusing exclusively on peace and security issues." In 2004-2005 Ploughshares made 123 grants totaling $4,071,669. A self-defined "venture funder," Ploughshares specializes in "giving start-up funding to promising new endeavors, and then helping to leverage more substantial support from other sources."

A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, the Ploughshares Fund contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of American foreign policies and military ventures. Among these are the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the U.S. Campaign to Ban Land Mines; the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Citizens for Environmental Justice; Back from the Brink; Peace Action; Women’s Action for New Directions; Nonviolent Peaceforce; the Natural Resources Defense Council; EcoDefense; Fund for Peace; Independent Media Institute; the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; the Institute for Policy Studies; the International Crisis Group; the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Win Without War; the Union of Concerned Scientists; September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows; the Nation Institute; the National Security Archive; Physicians for Human Rights; and Global Green USA.

In 2004 the Ploughshares Fund placed Michael Douglas, a high-profile Hollywood actor, on its Board of Directors. The Executive Director of the Ploughshares Fund is Naila Bolus, a former Co-Director of the environmentalist and anti-war group 20/20 Vision, and a co-founder of WiLL, the Women Legislators’ Lobby whose goal is to "persuade Congress to redirect excessive military spending toward unmet human and environmental needs."

The Ploughshares Fund is supported by donations from approximately 2,000 individuals annually and a small number of foundations. Among its benefactors are the Buffett Foundation; the Compton Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Ford Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Minneapolis Foundation; the Prospect Hill Foundation; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the Rockefeller Foundation the Scherman Foundation; George Soros’s Open Society Institute; and the Turner Foundation.

Mr. Soros and company sure got their money’s worth in this press release masquerading as a news story from the Washington Post.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, September 21st, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “WP Gives Obama Cover On Missile Shield”

  1. proreason says:

    Stenographers


« Front Page | To Top
« | »