Flash: The American People Want to Be Defended; Wall Street Journal Shows it Can Be Done First from the Sea

(Washington, D.C.): On 14 February, the latest Zogby poll confirmed what opinion research has consistently shown¹: A significant majority of the American people — according to Zogby, fully “60.6% of those queried” — want “a viable missile defense system in place rather than relying on the diplomatic success of disarmament treaties.” The question put by Zogby read as follows:

Which of the following statements best represents your position on a missile defense system — Statement A or Statement B? A: Constructing a national missile defense system will undermine our nuclear treaty with Russia and produce an unstable international situation. Statement B: Our best hope for long-term defense is developing our own missile defense system and not relying on treaties.

Some of the “break-out” demographics of the poll were even more impressive. Zogby reported that: “By region, Southerners were most likely to support missile defense development. An overwhelming 77% of Republicans, 65.5% of those 65 and older and 65.2% of Protestants concurred, along with all educational subgroups.” Less than three in ten “believed that the construction of a national missile defense system would undermine current nuclear treaties, including those with Russia, and serve only to produce a more unstable international nuclear situation. A further 10.8% were not sure.”

The Journal: Clinton Plays Politics with National Security

These poll results serve to underscore a point made the next day by the Wall Street Journal in its powerful lead editorial (see the attached): The Clinton-Gore Administration is at serious risk if the public ever comprehends that it continues to defer the decision to deploy the sort of effective anti-missile defenses the American people want and expect. The Journal also reiterates its appreciation of the fact that such defenses can most readily, effectively and affordably be acquired by adapting the U.S. Navy’s existing $50-plus billion AEGIS fleet air defense infrastructure, an approach for which both Governor Bush and Senator McCain have expressed supported.

This explains the stratagem being employed by the President and his chosen successor: 1) Give the appearance of support for defending America against missile attack, for example by signing legislation that makes it the policy of the U.S. government to deploy effective, limited national missile defenses as soon as technologically possible. This serves to confuse voters or otherwise to neutralize (“triangulate”) the issue as Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain promise to do just that.

But 2) postpone any actual deployment decision and condition it upon subjective considerations like “affordability” and “impact on the overall strategic environment” that can serve as pretexts for further, indefinite delay.² Then 3) pursue a new “Grand Compromise” with Russia that would gut the U.S. nuclear deterrent in exchange for the Kremlin’s grudging assent to what amounts to a new Anti Missile Defense Treaty that will leave America largely, if note actually entirely, vulnerable to missile attack.

The Bottom Line

The evidence suggests that the American people quite reasonably want defenses, not more anti-defense treaties. If the public is given a choice, candidates for public office seem likely to be rewarded for pledging to do so and for offering a plan for accomplishing it rapidly from the sea. The question that arises now is: Will the voters be given that choice — or will President Clinton, Vice President Gore and other opponents of missile defense get away with their bait-and-switch on missile defense?

¹See, for example Center for Security Policy, et. al. poll conducted in August 1998.

²See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Clinton’s Contempt of Congress (No. 00-D 14, 14 February 2000).