Well Done, Weldon: Senior Legislator Refuses to Accept Factually Incorrect ‘Political Correctness’ From Gen. Lyles

Syndrome Evident in Wake of Vetoed U.S. Space Control Programs

(Washington, D.C.): A hearing called yesterday by the House National Security Committee’s
Military Research and Development Subcommittee was the occasion for an unusually acrimonious
exchange between a senior executive branch official and an influential legislator — an exchange
that may prove to be the Shot-across-the-bow Heard ‘Round the Pentagon. When the
Director of the Defense Department’s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO),
Lieutenant General Lester Lyles (USAF), “lied” to the Subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Curt
Weldon (R-PA), the latter terminated the hearing and made a point of personally remonstrating
with the General about his “politicized” testimony.

In remarks on Blanquita Cullum‘s nationally syndicated radio show today, Rep. Weldon
explained that Gen. Lyles personally offended him and showed himself to be untrustworthy with
his testimony. Specifically, the General denied the existence of a letter concerning options that
could enhance U.S. military capabilities for defending against emerging Iranian missile threats — a
letter the Congressman knew for a fact was in preparation in BMDO. Indeed, information that
went into that draft correspondence identified specific amounts that could usefully be added to
accelerate, or otherwise improve, ongoing missile defense programs and that was drawn upon by
Rep. Weldon in preparing his new legislative initiative, the Iran Missile Protection Act of 1997
(IMPACT).

‘A Personal Crusade’

Rep. Weldon minced few words in the course of his broadcast remarks about Gen. Lyles’
politicized conduct — and the fact that it is all-too-typical of senior military leaders seeking
promotion from the Clinton Administration:

• [Describing what he said to Gen. Lyles after gavelling the hearing to a close:] “When I took
  the oath of allegiance [for] my job I swore to uphold the Constitution and when you took the
  third star [of a lieutenant general]…you…agreed to serve the military. Your allegiance is to
  the Constitution, not to some political partisan rhetoric given out by the White
  House….I said you’re doing a disservice to our Country, General, and I don’t trust you. I said
  this is more like Russia to me than the U.S.”
• “This administration is more about having generals and admirals be politically correct
  than it is about having generals and admirals tell the honest story to the Congress and
  the American people about the severity of threats that are emerging. I don’t want to
  overstate the threat, but I don’t want some general looking to get his fourth star…coming in
  and trying to be careful about what he says, as opposed to us being able to protect our kids.
  The largest loss of life that we had during Desert Storm was when those 26 kids were killed by
  that SCUD missile….I think it’s outrageous that we have a general in charge of missile
  defense who’s playing games, in my opinion, with lives of those troops who are going to
  be at risk in the Iranian theater…over the next one to two years.”
• “The Pentagon has become a politically correct entity where the generals and the
  admirals who are so concerned about their advancement don’t want to say anything
  that…they perceive might run contrary to what Bill Clinton and the Administration
  party line is. That is not their job. And I’m not going to stand for that kind of testimony
  before my committee. And I can tell you what they saw yesterday is just the beginning as
  far as I’m concerned and I’m not going to let this pass.”
• “I am for one going to make it a personal crusade to stop this. And I’m going to start with
  this general who offended me personally and who I think offends every American by basically
  the political testimony he presented yesterday.”
• “I will pursue this to whatever level I can to hold him, and more importantly, the
  Department of Defense accountable. Because I know what happened. The Secretary of
  Defense and the White House…got to him and said you go in there and tow the party
  line and you tell them that you don’t have dollar amounts.”
• “We’re talking about the security and safety of our American military — 25 thousand of them
  who… are stationed around Iran today. It is not the right of any general or [any] White
  House to politicize the data that we need to adequately protect them and that is what
  occurred yesterday. It’s unconscionable and I’m going to hold accountable both those
  individuals in the White House and the Pentagon if any blood is shed on the part of any
  of our troops from an Iranian missile if one is deployed 12 months from now. This is
  outrageous.”

The Counterpart Problem with ‘Politicized Intelligence’

Rep. Weldon has been equally forthright — and perspicacious — about other manifestations of the
Clinton politicization of key national security institutions. Specifically, he was one of the most
vocal congressional critics of the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate on the emerging long-range
ballistic missile threat, an analysis that relied upon preposterous assumptions to support the pre-determined conclusion that no such threat to the United States would emerge for at least 10-15
years.⁽¹⁾

Rep. Weldon has also expressed concern about the “politicization of intelligence” in connection
with the recent, unexpected departure from the CIA of the director of its Non-proliferation
Center, Gordon Oehler. The New York Times reported on 21 October that “[Rep. Weldon]
asserted that Mr. Oehler was being punished for giving ‘honest and forthcoming briefings’ to
Congress about Russian and Chinese exports of dangerous materiel, technology and missiles to
countries like Iran and Pakistan. ‘This is a watershed event and I’m going to make this a test
case.’ Rep. Weldon said. ‘It’s a pattern of this Administration, when it gets information that
runs counter to the policy, they try to destroy the person that brings the message.'”

Now, The Military is Being Politicized on Space Dominance

In the wake of the first exercise of the line-item veto by President Clinton on “policy” grounds for
the purpose of eliminating three programs essential to future U.S. capabilities to exercise control
of space as a theater of military operations⁽²⁾ — the Air Force is frantically rewriting its doctrines,
mission requirements and budget requests to delete references to the need for such capabilities.
What was proudly described as recently as a month ago to be the visionary “Air and Space
Force” for the 21^st Century is rapidly mutating into an Air and No Space Force.

The impetus behind the Administration’s policy initiative appears to be its desire to be responsive
to a proposal from Russian President Boris Yeltsin to initiate negotiations leading toward a
series of anti-satellite bans. (Two pages of excerpts of President Yeltsin’s letter, which set in
train at least one set of meetings between senior Russian and American officials, are attached.)
While such negotiations will do nothing to enhance the security of U.S. space assets,⁽³⁾ it can
reliably be expected to preclude the United States from developing and fielding virtually all
systems relevant to space control.

The Air Force’s frantic effort to conform without objection to such a pernicious and reckless
policy is just one more example of the politicization of the U.S. armed forces. Few, if any,
competent military officer believes 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. This insight was already apparent in Operation Desert Storm;
it will only become more so in the future.

The Bottom Line

Accordingly, it is of enormous importance to the future security of the country — not to mention
to the efficacy of the ballistic missile defense programs in which Rep. Weldon has commendably
taken such a formidable interest — that his “personal crusade” against suborning politicization turn
immediately to an examination of the issue of space control. The Center for Security Policy
urges Mr. Weldon to convene hearings during the coming congressional recess for the
purpose of promptly establishing whether the uniformed services will tell the truth about
the need for U.S. dominance of the military theater of space. If necessary for their protection
from spiteful political commissars, witnesses should be subpoenaed and asked to testify under
oath.

The alternative is for Congress to acquiesce in this travesty, denying the military any alternative
but to become party to the Clinton Administration’s reckless pursuit of a scorched earth policy, a
policy that will have the effect of denying the Nation the space control doctrine and capabilities it
will so clearly require in the years ahead.

It is ironic that President Clinton’s line item veto of the three space control-relevant programs
came fifty years to the day after Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier — an event that opened
the Space Age. This age will not come to an end with President Clinton’s efforts to zero out
American technologies needed to dominate space as a theater of military operations. What may
end, however, is the United States’ ability to prevail on the battlefields, on and under the seas and
in skies of this planet when the next conflict comes. We can only pray that Representative
Weldon and those who share his belief in a strong and secure America will prevent such a tragic —
and avoidable — disaster.

– 30 –

1. See the following Center products: It Walks Like A Duck…: Questions Persist That Clinton
CIA’s Missile Threat Estimate Was Politically Motivated (No. 96-D 122, 4 December 1996)
and ‘There You Go Again’: More Chinese Proliferation, More Clinton Politicization of
Intelligence (No. 96-D 56, 12 June 1996).

2. The three programs in question are the Clementine II astrophysics experiment, the Army’s
Kinetic Kill Anti-Satellite Weapon and the Military Space Plane. For more on the implications of
these systems’ cancellation, see Clinton Watch # 8: Denying U.S. Military the Ability To
Dominate The Next, Critical Theater of Operations — Space (No. 97-D 153, 15 October 1997).

3. See the Center’ 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).