Missile Shields for Peanuts
gives us a concise overview of the thinking--or lack of thinking, as the case may be--behind the Obama Administration's recent decision to abandon "Third Site" ground missile defense capabilities in Europe and replace them with mobile missile interceptors on Aegis ships. She makes the case that the arguments advanced in favor of this move are disingenuous and, what is worse, based on a dangerous and misleading understanding of America's purposes in the world. While disputing claims that the move could be considered a modernizing upgrade combined with cost-savings, she also argues that Obama's is making a dangerous gamble from a strategic point of view. If our objective was to appear less threatening and, thereby, to invite a less threatening posture from potential adversaries, events do not suggest that our invitation has been accepted.
1:16 AM / September 25, 2009