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 > Entry
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
Comments
By THOMAS J
October 12, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this
Say Hey when it comes to missel defence aganist Iran we have an ACE in the hole, Its called Israel
By TRS
October 12, 2009 3:30 PM | Link to this
I know not know who is right or wrong in this debate as both sides have logical arguments; but, I do believe the editorialists simply blew off the foreign policy ramifications as just a little fence mending. One thing the Poles and Czechs know now is that our word is undependable. It also gave Russia something for nothing. Based on this and other foreign policy decisions by this President, the world may like us better but we could soon become known as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.
By Raoul
October 12, 2009 5:24 PM | Link to this
To characterize Turner’s view as ‘wrong’ is silly, since the DDN is hardly more capable of making these decisions than is Turner, whose knowledge of the issue is ‘impressive’. It would be better to state that Turner’s position is debatable, not wrong.
By dhampton100
October 13, 2009 5:25 AM | Link to this
I know this may seem like a vivid imagination but we did not send Mike turner to Washington to pontificate about Russia and long range missiles. We sent him there to bring money home, like the rest of Congress-persons period. If his ego was not so inflated maybe, just maybe he could do his job!
By james
October 13, 2009 5:41 AM | Link to this
dhampton100 needs a primer on the job of a congressperson. They sit on committees and lead investigations. So this is his job. Last I checked he also was bringing home the bacon in a big way. So, looks like he’s doing his job very well. dhampton100, did you pass 9th grade civics?
By Jane
October 13, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this
What is the deal with the personal insults every time an article is written about Turner? It’s like the same people all the time with different names. Did she pass 9th grade civics, I mean really? In actuality, Turner gets his facts wrong. Whether his end position is debatable or not, the people writing his talking points are getting their facts wrong. The dates are wrong in many of his assertions. It lowers his legitimacy.
By TRS
October 13, 2009 7:27 PM | Link to this
Worth noting - the Russians said today that sanctions against Iran would not work and wasn’t the way to go. Talk about giving something up for nothing!
By JL
October 13, 2009 10:15 PM | Link to this
How did this article have anything to do with ‘bringing home the money’ and how can you say that is honestly ‘the’ job of a congressperson? And moreover, editorial board, why don’t you cover something without being a monday morning QB. You only write about/criticize what an elected official has done. Step outside of your high and mighty cubicle and actually editorialize. What do you think of the death of the US dollar, the health care bill - without commenting on how elected officials will vote, or how you believe impending legislation will effect Daytonians? I know, that would require you doing research, putting your own opinions out there to be scrutinized, and your job, but I imagine that wouldn’t be nearly as fun.
By null
October 14, 2009 1:10 AM | Link to this
I think everbody out there that doubts we have enemies should read what Tammy Obeidallah has to say about Dayton and the rest of America.Google it, read it and then believe it.
By earl
October 15, 2009 6:09 PM | Link to this
Martin Gottlieb writes, “… the Obama plan is standing up to capable scrutiny.” And this is especially true of America’s enemies, they are simply ecstatic.
By Tammy Watts-Obeidallah
October 26, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this
Hey is that “Israel Lover,” the goofy poster from the article on Dayton signing a technology sharing agreement with mass murderers? Anyway, please do google all my work and try to educate yourself…seems like it’s still going over your empty head.