A New Architecture for Defense Contracts
by Frieda Gardner, WAMM
For a brief introductory discussion of the proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system, see "The Politics of Perfect Safety" in the July/August 2000 worldwideWAMM. Also, The Hightower Lowdown, March 2001, volume 3, number 3, features an excellent lead story and commentary.
A party on a U.S. nuclear submarine brought death to nine people aboard a Japanese fishing ship. Training exercises in the Kuwaiti desert killed six soldiers. More Marines have died in crashes of the experimental V-22 Osprey aircraft (total crash casualties to date: 23; estimated cost per plane: $80 million).
News from the American military has not sounded triumphant lately. Yet despite such problematic "accidents," it is impossible to find a member of President Bush's national security team who does not praise some form of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Yes, there are a few internal disputes, but they concern how NMD should be built, not whether or not the project is warranted at all. Some want our new anti-missile-missiles to flit around on ships, ready for the least provocation. Others favor a solidly grounded land-based system up in Alaska, which might become operational sooner.
The viability of a NMD system has never been strongly demonstrated. Indeed, the latest report (in late February) from the Pentagon's former chief testing analyst finds big technological problems and a plague of "schedule-driven" miscalculations. "Kill vehicles" do not get boosted properly, a tracking device called the Space-Based Infrared System-Low is both behind schedule and over budget, etc. In what is now the rather long history of "Star Wars" technology, why doesn't bad news ever seem to make a dent in defense heads both Republican and Democratic? Is it willful blindness? Greed? Craven fear of the military-industrial complex? The simple need for a new defense product line? Sunny American optimism? The latter recently captivated David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union: "[We] believe that if we really want to do something, we will do it. We built the bomb. We went to the moon. And if we want to knock those missiles down, we'll figure out how to do it."
The greed/influence/fear angles are easy to figure. Practically everyone on the national security team has been, at one time or another, hooked deep into the military-industrial complex. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld worked at RAND and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and has had financial interest in companies like Gulfstream Aerospace. Steven Hadley, Bush's deputy director of the National Security Council, has been a partner at Shea & Gardner, a law firm which works for Lockheed Martin. Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, has served on the boards of Chevron and the Hewlett Foundation. And of course, Vice President Dick Cheney (whose wife Lynne recently resigned from Lockheed's board) has served defense contractor TRW and generated a number of defense contracts while working for Halliburton. As if this influence is not enough, we read in The Hightower Lowdown of $32.3 million in defense-related lobbying expenditures over the last two years.
Of course, nobody ever says we must have NMD in order to feed the always-famished military-industrial complex. Ideology is ready at hand. There appears to be broad (though unspoken) agreement that America must have a wide-ranging strategy, befitting its imperial power. Colin Powell is a well-known advocate of clear entrance and exit plans, and he calls NMD "an essential part" of our strategy. Rice dislikes the idea of America as "the world's 911." She too prefers cool-headed, global, strategic analysis of our "interests" over softhearted principle, even if that means abrogation of our signed treaties (like the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits building NMD-type systems).
Rumsfeld, a Cold War veteran from way back, has worried about our loss of Russia as the Big Enemy and looks for a military "rallying point" that would be our "defining mission." He has voiced fear that lack of NMD would threaten our heavyweight status, speculating that without it, a president might be tempted to become isolationist, cowering before an armed enemy. Or, our leader might overplay our power, preemptively dropping nuclear bombs on a puny rogue adversary. From these qualms, Rumsfeld leapt to high moral ground: It would be immoral for us to let ourselves fall into vulnerability. "A system of defense need not be perfect; but the American people must not be left completely defenseless."
If all this abstract talk about strategy, national interests, and missions sounds a little fuzzy, it is probably due to a surprising non-spending event. Early in his administration, Bush decided to feature monster tax cuts and education-voucher ideas and to defer a big jump in defense spending. Instead, Rumsfeld is making a wide-ranging investigation of U.S. post-cold war military policies and priorities.
Two of his goals are rumored to be consideration of deep cuts in the number of our long-range nuclear missiles and withdrawal of US forces from bases all over the world. Needless to say, the Bush administration is not turning pacifist. What lies ahead is most likely a rearrangement of the huge Pentagon budget.
And no one -- neither our allies nor our potential enemies -- doubts that NMD is on its way. Just listen to Bush in rapture over a "new architecture for defense of our people": "On land, our heavy forces will be lighter, our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, we will be able to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy, using both aircraft and unmanned systems."
The new plans are due out in July. The time to start writing letters and demonstrating about NMD is now.
National Missile Defense Resources
www.dontblowit.org
(To send a quick postcard to President Bush)
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
10 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
202-546-0795 (phone)
202-546-7970 (fax)
coalition@clw.org
www.crnd.org
(For excellent technical information)
Peace Action
1819 H Street NW, Suite 420
Washington DC 20006
202-862-9740 (phone)
202-862-9762 (fax)
www.webcom.com/peaceact/starwars_alert.html
(For a sample 4-point letter to your Congressperson)
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
691 Massachusetts Avenue
Arlington, MA 02476
781-643-6740 (phone)
781-643-6744 (fax)
info@wand.org
www.wand.org
(To sign a petition opposing missile defense)
WAMM Action!
Call your Senators and Representative and let them know how you feel about the National Missile Defense system:
Capitol Switchboard:
202-224-3121
Or, write a letter to your Senators and Representative using the addresses below:
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515