| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: August 16, 2001
Mad About the Cold War
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
|
The world at the dawn of the 21st century is very different from the world that witnessed the Cold War. Fundamental changes have occurred that require us to rethink America's security needs. The threats to America's national security are completely different now, and in many ways more treacherous.
Those who oppose the creation of an American missile defense seem to harbor a peculiar nostalgia for the Cold War. Rather than acknowledging that enormous changes have occurred in the world, they assert that the familiar doctrines that guided us through the long struggle with the Soviet Union are perfectly appropriate to deal with the leaders of rogue states such as Saddam Hussein.
Like the leaders of France in the 1930s who built the Maginot Line to defend their country against the German military machine of 20 years earlier, those who oppose missile defense would have us look backward rather than forward. But the Iron Curtain is gone, as is the Soviet Union. The most urgent threat we face today is not thousands of ballistic missiles in Soviet hands, but a number of missiles, armed with weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of several rogue states.
The leaders of these states, Saddam Hussein first among them, have shown a willingness to take large gambles -- gambles that in some cases have cost their people dearly. These leaders may well believe that they can use blackmail to prevent us from coming to the assistance of our friends and allies in vital regions of interest if they can hold even a small number of our cities hostage to attack. The regimes in nations like Iraq and North Korea are unable to feed their own people, yet they devote massive sums to the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles -- demonstrating the importance these leaders attach to possession of such weapons.
One of the reasons ballistic missiles are so attractive to rogue states is that the United States lacks effective defenses against this threat. Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il are not investing in large, modern navies to confront us on the high seas because we enjoy an overwhelming advantage there. They are investing in missiles because the United States and our allies are vulnerable in this area.
There are compelling reasons for the United States to move quickly to build a missile defense system:
Missile defense helps deter countries from launching a missile attack because such an attack would be defeated and, in many cases, cause the missile to fall back on its launch site.
Missile defense would prevent rogue states from trying to use the threat of a missile attack to blackmail the United States and to dissuade our allies from coming to the aid of nations in vital regions of the world.
Missile defense deters countries from spending precious resources on long-range missiles by undermining their military utility.
And finally, missile defense gives the President an alternative to the grim prospect of ordering a retaliatory strike that might kill many innocent civilians in responding to the reckless act of an irresponsible dictator.
Clinging to Cold War left-overs such as the MAD and the ABM Treaty also prevents us from moving toward a better relationship with Russia. The adversarial relationship codified in the ABM Treaty is no longer appropriate now that Russia is not our enemy. We need a new strategic framework for our relationship, one based on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation. President Bush has started intensive consultations with Russia to move beyond MAD and the ABM Treaty to forge a more appropriate framework for our relations in the 21st century.
The policies that allowed the United States and the West to prevail in the Cold War certainly deserve recognition, but we cannot allow our military thinking to remain mired in the logic of an earlier time.
Note: Senator Hutchison issues a weekly column; the above is adapted from her column of August 16, 2001.
 How to contact Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
