Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 12
Monday, October 12, 2009
Editorial: Turner impressive on missiles, but wrong
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, has achieved some national visibility as a voice of Republicans opposing President Barack Obama’s missile defense policies.
The president has undone a decision made by President George W. Bush to stage defense against missiles from Poland and the Czech Republic. The Obama decision has made big headlines in Europe.
Rep. Turner, as ranking Republican on the strategic forces subcommittee, has raised an alarm on cable talk shows and in speeches, as well as in Congress.
He comes off as obviously knowledgeable, a capable spokesman. He must be building a reputation among his colleagues for knowing some complex defense issues.
This is nothing to take for granted. True, he’s been in Congress long enough — since 2003 — that he should be emerging as an important player. In fact, however, some other legislators from southwestern Ohio could never perform this kind of role.
Whether he’s actually right, though, is another question.
The issue, though complex, pretty much comes down to an old-fashioned hawk-dove thing. The congressman is raising an alarm about the Obama administration spending too little money and making unrequited concessions to Russia.
But the administration’s position — carved, strangely enough, by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was also behind the Bush plan, as defense secretary — looks perfectly hardheaded. It’s largely a matter of modernizing.
When President Bush decided to put missile defenses in Eastern Europe, Russia objected passionately. It said Washington and Europe were treating Russia as an enemy, trying to minimize its role in its own neighborhood, and threatening it with systems that might be made offensive. That was among several issues that caused presidential candidate Barack Obama to say he wanted to press the reset button on U.S.-Russian relations.
Rep. Turner presents that goal as a primary reason for the new Obama plan.
But the administration says its new plan — largely to place certain defensive missiles on ships, instead — is mainly about recognizing the most pressing, most real threat: short-range missiles from Iran.
The administration says Iran has been making the most progress in the short-range realm, which the Bush plan was not focused on. The current White House says it can get the right defenses in place sooner its way. (The Bush administration hadn’t put systems in place, just announced the plan. )
Rep. Turner says the Obama plan gives too little attention to the possibility of Iranian long-range missiles. He says the plan wouldn’t have anything in place to combat them until 2020, some years later than the Bush plan.
But the Pentagon says it has defensive systems in place in California and Alaska to handle long-range missiles.
In response, Rep. Turner says the administration has cut funding in Alaska by one-third (which he unsuccessfully opposed in Congress).
He also notes that Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to take the American missiles at some political cost, given relations with Russia, only to turn out to have paid that price for no reason.
This is true. President Obama has some fence-mending to do.
To a certain degree, the overall debate comes down to technical issues, like how reliable are the missiles in Alaska. That’s difficult for a lay person to sort through.
But the Obama plan is widely reported to have the support of the top military brass, not just Secretary Gates. True, the generals have to confront an era of limits on spending, making some choices they don’t like. But if they have great qualms, they know how to make them heard.
Ultimately, Rep. Turner is complaining that missile defense spending is being limited at a time when all manner of other spending is increasing. It would be a stronger complaint if Obama’s plan really seemed imprudent.
The issue will continue to evolve as Iranian technological progress is monitored, and as American systems develop. For now, though, the Obama plan is standing up to capable scrutiny.
(To see an online collection of Rep. Turner’s television and other appearances relating to defensive missiles, see his Web site at www.turner.house.gov and click on “Mike on National Security.”)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
