Clinton's Opposition to Cochran-Inouye Missile Defense Bill Offers Proof of His Abiding Hostility to Defending America

Will Secretary Cohen Resign?

(Washington, D.C.): In the wake of Secretary of Defense William Cohen‘s
announcement on
20 January that the Clinton Administration now believed the threat of missile attack against the
United States to be sufficiently real as to justify the deployment of national anti-missile systems,
many Americans reasonably sensed that the President had had a change of
heart. It seemed
that it would no longer be his policy to condemn the American people to a state of open-ended
and abject vulnerability to ballistic missile strikes.

Unfortunately, in the succeeding days, it has become palpably clear that the
Secretary of
Defense was either duped into believing that the Administration’s stance had changed —
when, in fact, it had not — or he was sent out deliberately to mislead the public, their
elected representatives and the press.

‘Bait and Switch’

Consider the following items in a troubling bill of particulars:

The Secretary of Defense’s suggestion that the U.S. would not allow the Russians
to
exercise a veto over America’s deployment of needed missile defenses was swiftly
disavowed
by various senior officials at the National Security Council and State Department. For
example, in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John
Warner (R-VA)
dated 8 February, National Security Advisor Samuel Berger emphasized that,
“A decision
regarding a national missile defense (NMD) deployment must…be addressed within the
context
of the ABM Treaty….The ABM Treaty remains a cornerstone of strategic stability.”
(Emphasis
added.)

In contrast to Mr. Cohen’s statement, it turns out that the Administration has not
yet
reached a conclusion that the threat posed by proliferating ballistic missiles warrants a
decision to deploy anti-missile systems. According to today’s Washington
Times, Mr.
Berger’s letter contends that “the Administration’s decision on deploying a national missile
defense system will be based on whether the system will work, the nature of the ‘rogue state
ballistic missile threat to the United States’ and the cost.” (Emphasis added.)

The Clinton team has taken a number of programmatic actions that will have the
effect
of postponing the availability and diminishing the capability of ballistic missile defenses.
While it has made much of the announced decision to add $6.6 billion to the “out-years”
budget for missile defense, the Administration’s program will actually: delay by at least two
years (to 2005) the initial operational capability of its preferred national missile defense
system; delay until two years after that (i.e., at the earliest 2007) the availability of
promising
theater missile defense systems — that were supposed to be available faster and enjoy higher
priority than NMD capabilities; and eviscerated the test program needed to bring the low-altitude
Space-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) missile tracking system on-line.

Enter the Senate’s Bipartisan Missile Defense Legislation

Despite the dire practical effects of its programmatic and policy actions for realizing any
near-term missile defenses for the U.S., or even for its forces and allies overseas, the
Administration
clearly has wanted to have it both ways. To the extent that the public believes Mr.
Clinton is
actually doing something about the missile threat, his opponents are denied a potentially damaging
political issue.

The good news is that the Administration’s hand is being forced by legislation
reintroduced
in the 106^th Session by Senators Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Daniel Inouye
(D-HA), after
their efforts to get an earlier version adopted last year were twice thwarted by filibusters sustained
by a one-vote margin. ¹ As the Times reports
today, Mr. Warner’s Armed Services Committee
favorably reported the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (S.257) to the full
Senate
yesterday on a bipartisan vote of 11-7 (with Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut voting
in favor and Mary Landrieu abstaining).

It was in response to the Cochran-Inouye initiative that Mr. Berger wrote the Committee
advising
it that the President “strongly opposes” the National Missile Defense Act. According to the
Washington Times, “Mr. Clinton opposes the bill because it would upset the
Administration’s
arms control agenda with Moscow.”

The Bottom Line

Action on the Cochran-Inouye bill — ideally, by both houses of Congress shortly
after the
February recess — would have the salutary effect of clarifying precisely where not only the Clinton
Administration but Members of Congress stand on what is one of the most important national
security decisions of out time: Who favors deploying missile defenses as soon as
technologically possible, in light of the real and growing danger posed by the proliferation
of long-range ballistic missile and the weapons of mass destruction they are designed to
carry? Alternatively, who favors leaving the American people vulnerable to a ballistic
missile
attack for the foreseeable future?

If, as appeared to be the case on 20 January, Defense Secretary William Cohen stands with
the
former group, he would do an immense public service by breaking publicly with a Clinton
Administration that clearly lists itself among the latter. By resigning his post over a matter of
fundamental importance to the future security of the American people, he could do perhaps more
than anyone else to illuminate what is at stake and to create conditions under which America is
defended — sooner, rather than later; more effectively and cheaply rather than inadequately and at
terrible cost, perhaps in terms of lives as well as dollars.

¹ See the Center’s Decision Briefs entitled
Shame, Shame Redux: As Clinton Presidency
Melts Down, 41 Democrats Continue Filibuster of Bill to Defend America ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_160″>No. 98-D 160, 9
September 1998) and Shame, Shame: By One Vote, Minority of Senators
Perpetuate
America’s Vulnerability to Missile Attack (No.
98-D 84, 14 May 1998).