GailForce
Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer
On December 16, two days before scheduled UN talks on its nuclear program, and in a not so subtle warning to the U.S. and its allies, Iran test fired, the Sajjil-2, the latest variant of their ongoing missile development program. The missile is powered by solid fuel which makes it more accurate, has a 1200 mile range and according to their Defense Minister, General Ahmad Vahidi, flies faster and can be fired more quickly than earlier versions. Also of concern is apparently the missiles can be fueled in advance and have a mobile capability making them harder to find and target. The missile’s range allows it to reach U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf, Israel and locations in south Eastern Europe. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out the missile range also “includes U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, all of them Sunni Arab dominated countries that are rivals of Shiite Iran”. The launch is part of an ongoing war game conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and according to a report in Bloomberg.com is one of 9 missile launches thus far.
This event causes several thoughts to swirl through my mind. First off it reminds me that our national security threats are not just about Iraq, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. There are many ways a potential enemy can come at us. Today Iran once again reminded us it’s not going gently into the night. North Korea pops up every now and then to make a similar point and let’s not even get into the undeclared cyber war going on against U.S. networks every day. According to a 2009 report to Congress of the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, in the first 6 months of 2009 there were 43,785 reported incidents of malicious cyber activity against the Department of Defense, a 60 percent increase over attacks reported in 2008 30, 2009.
During the Cold War, there was a security within the in security. You had a pretty good idea of who the bad guys were and what they could or could not do to you. We had watched each other so long; each side had a pretty good idea of when the other was just rattling their swords and talking trash or was genuinely upset about one thing or the other. Consequently it was easier to identify threats to national security and develop the weapons and programs and military to counter it.
Ever since the end of the Cold War it seems to me there has been no overarching coherent national security policy designed to address all potential threats. We’ve been in the reactive mode primarily focusing our efforts on the terrorism issue in the aftermath of 9/11 and aligning our military forces, budgets, and strategies on various threats as they pop up. This is understandable but it seems to me we need to also focus on coming up with an overall defense plan and that reflects all possible threats to national security. Once you’ve thought that out then you can better decide issues such as what should be the size of our defense forces, what new programs to fund, what old programs to keep and what to cut.
I’m reminded of a philosophy course I took in college. We’d sit around and discuss stuff like how do you know you exist? We’d usually end by quoting the old French Philosopher Rene Descartes who finally ended the argument, at least in his mind, by saying, “I think therefore I exist.” As I thought about this blog, I asked myself at what point did I become aware of a philosophy or view point concerning national security policy. Answer, at the age of 11 during the 1960 Presidential election when I first heard JFK talk about Flexible Response, having multiple options against various threats that would allow the president to apply the appropriate amount of force at the right place. That concept made sense to me then and resonates with me today.
In today’s environment, I believe that means we first need to identify threats, and then figure out what it would take to counter them. We’d also have to look at issues such as size of forces needed to carry out strategies i.e. would we need to be able to fight one war plus two major crises at any given point in time or two wars and one major crisis?
Have no doubt about it there are threats other than terrorism that can cause major problems. Looking simply at Iran, they can create a lot of hate and discontent. For example, it would not be inconceivable for them to retaliate if Israel decided to take out their nuclear facilities. One fifth of the world’s oil supply travels through the Strait of Hormuz, if the Iranians decided to mine the waters around and in the strait, it could get very ugly very quickly. If they chose not to admit they were responsible for the mining, diplomatically it could get dicey attacking them without proof. They could also be overt and launch missiles against U.S. and allied targets. The worse nightmare of course would be if they did have the capability to put a nuclear war head on those missiles. Most estimates say they are a few years away from that capability but what if the estimates are wrong? I’m reminded of pre-Desert Storm estimates on Iraq’s nuclear weapon capability. He was thought to be years away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. Shortly after the first Gulf War when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAA) and the UN Inspectors had time to sniff around the country they were surprised at how much more advanced Iraq’s program was over pre-war estimates. A 1996 IEAA report said if not for the Gulf War interruption, Iraq could have had a nuclear device by as early as 1992.
I know that the Defense Department is hard at work on the Quadrennial Defense Review where they look at strategic objectives and potential threats. I have no doubts that a group of talented hard working people are putting there best effort to this very important task. They’re due to give the report to Congress in 2010. I look forward to reading the reports.
My thoughts are my own, I’m just a retired Baby Boomer living happily ever after in the Rocky Mountains. Think I’ll go for a walk in the snow.
Gail Harris
