Wall Street Journal, Center’s Gaffney Urge Debate About Clinton’s ‘Foolhardy’ Vetoes Of Space Control Programs

(Washington, D.C.): Monday’s editions of the Wall Street Journal and Defense News featured
parallel warnings about the folly of President Clinton’s first line-item vetoes justified on “policy
grounds” — i.e., to terminate three programs critical to the Nation’s future ability to exercise
military control of outer space. A lengthy editorial in the Journal entitled “Giving Saddam Space”
and an op.ed. column by the Center for Security Policy’s director, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., in
Defense News reach similar conclusions: The stakes involved in ceding such control to others are
enormous — and the need for debate about these decisions and corrective actions compelling.

These articles argue that the three programs in question — the Clementine II asteroid intercept
experiment, the Army’s Kinetic Kill Anti-Satellite Weapon and the Military Space Plane —
have the potential, if brought to fruition, to afford the armed forces the means with which to
exercise space dominance. They observe that the experience with Operation Desert Storm and
subsequent war games have established that such a capability will be absolutely decisive to the
future conduct of the military’s terrestrial operations.

The Wall Street Journal correctly assails the Clinton Administration for being “enthralled with the
old-time fears of the ‘militarization of space’ and clinging to the barren theology of arms control”
with “the Administration…insisting that the best way to preserve national security is through
unverifiable, unenforceable treaties.” It notes, as the Center first revealed on 15 October⁽¹⁾, that
“Mr. Clinton’s veto[es] might well have been a response to Boris Yeltsin’s vehement objection to
the MIRACL laser test.⁽²⁾ Mr. Yeltsin has sent a Dear Bill letter formally requesting negotiations
leading to a ban on anti-satellite weapons.” At the very least, as the Journal editorial suggests,
“The Administration is bent on extending the ABM Treaty to include a ban on space-based missile
defenses.”

The Journal concludes by observing that President Clinton’s attachment to “unverifiable,
unenforceable treaties” contrasts with the view of “most Republicans in Congress” who
believe that the best way to protect the national interest is for the U.S. to keep itself
strong.” The editorial concludes with a call for a debate on these “competing visions…of the
Nation’s security.”

The Center’s Gaffney believes that such a debate is not only in order but that it must also be
informed by the candid, professional views of the United States’ military leadership. After all, as
Gaffney notes: “Few — if any — competent military officers believe that the United States will be
able to conduct successful terrestrial operations in the future without enjoying unhampered use of
space, and the ability to deny it to adversaries.” Silence in the face of decisions that will seriously
impinge, upon if not preclude altogether, such space dominance will be considered to be
indifference to that prospect.

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy commends the Wall Street Journal and Defense News for their
contributions to the initiation of such a debate. Now, it behooves their colleagues in the media,
the Congress, the public at large — and most especially the U.S. military — to engage in shaping
what may prove to be one of the most important national security decisions of the 21^st Century:
Will America’s future be defined by an ability to exercise dominance of space, or by others’
control thereof?

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Clinton Legacy Watch # 8: Denying U.S. Military
the Ability to Dominate the Next, Critical Theater of Operations — Space (No. 97-D 153, 15
October 1997).

2. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Test the MIRACL Laser Against A Satellite: The
Outcome of the Next War May Turn On A Proven American A.S.A.T. Capability (No. 97-D
122, 2 September 1997).