Lessons of the War with Iraq (Part 2): No Less Defense for America than for Tel Aviv

(Washington, D.C.): As part of its ongoing effort to identify lessons from the war with Iraq and to recommend appropriate changes in U.S. policy and programs, the Center for Security Policy urged President Bush to announce in his State of the Union address this evening a commitment to the immediate deployment of comprehensive strategic defenses.

The Center believes that, in the wake of the extraordinary success of the Patriot system in Israel and Saudi Arabia, the issue clearly is no longer whether anti-missile defenses can work. Clearly, they can.

Some try to minimize the significance of the Patriot’s contribution by contending that the incoming Iraqi Scud missiles represent dated technology. Yet, the difference between Saddam Hussein’s Scuds and modern ballistic missile systems is roughly comparable to the difference between the capabilities of a quite limited, jury-rigged point defense weapon like Patriot and those of state-of-the-art, orbiting interceptors being developed under the Brilliant Pebbles program. There is, accordingly, every reason to believe that advanced defenses will be capable of dealing with advanced Soviet (and third country) ballistic missiles at least as effectively as the Patriot is now dealing with the present Iraqi threat.

Equally clear in the aftermath of Iraq’s ballistic missile attacks on its neighbors is the fact that no one — certainly not the American people — wishes to be defenseless in the face of such attacks. Even a partially effective defense is preferable to the United States’ present condition of intentional and absolute vulnerability.

At this point, the only issue worthy of serious discussion is whichat least technology should the United States acquire to afford its citizens the level of protection now being offered certain allies? Should it be an improved form of ground-based interceptor — capable of defending a limited piece of high value territory, say a city or perhaps a state? Or should it be a defensive system like Brilliant Pebbles, capable of defending whole countries and continents against the missiles of the Saddam Husseins of the world — or those of resurgent Soviet hardliners?

The Center believes that the necessary degree of protection can only be acquired by deploying an orbiting defense system, perhaps with a modest underlay of ground-based interceptors. No statement or action by President Bush could do more to demonstrate his determination to safeguard the national interest — or to draw the right lessons from the conflict with Saddam Hussein — than an announcement to the Joint Session of Congress tonight that he will at once begin the active defense of the United States.

The case for abandoning the policy of assured vulnerability — and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 which makes this policy the supreme law of the land — is developed further in an article by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. published yesterday in Defense News. A copy of this article is attached.