My point was that in Bush's War on Terror, he chases the sexy (election) stuff, and neglects the not-so-sexy stuff. Of course (I and we all here)understand that securing ports is a measure directed toward non-state terrorism, and a missile shield is directed toward state terrorism. My controversial opinion is that we must be as effective as possible when it comes to security, and the state of cargo inspections 2.5 years out is simply inexcusable. We have the means, we have the money, but this mission is not being completed at an acceptable pace. That lands on the desks of Bush and Ridge, at least.
As a contrast to the languishing effort to secure cargo shipments, consider the following:
<<Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on Feb. 13, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld released some startling information: the Department of Defense asked in the fiscal year 2004 budget request for a waiver that would allow the Pentagon to skip operational testing for some of the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) programs. Claiming that the systems didn’t need to be perfect before being deployed, Rumsfeld argued that "it makes sense to waive [operational testing] when reasonable people look at the situation and say that it’s time to do that." Yet given the poor showing missile defense has had in testing thus far and its largely immature state of development, it does not seem reasonable to grant a waiver from operational testing. Furthermore, it could set a precedent where weapons are hurried into production before they have completed their testing, resulting in the fielding of unreliable systems that unnecessarily endanger American lives.>>
cdi.org
Thomas Christie seems to agree with my "rushed along" comment:
<<Director of Operational Test & Evaluation Thomas Christie is worried that the missile defense system being deployed this year is so technologically immature his office won’t be able to assess it. In his FY 2003 report, Christie writes that “it is not clear what mission capability will be demonstrated prior to initial defense operations”, due to the very restricted tests undertaken thus far. He notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has left only “very limited time for demonstration” of the GMD system as a result of developmental problems with the new booster rockets. Overall, his concern is that what have been tested to date are individual missile defense components, “not end-to-end operational testing of a mature integrated system.” He also comments that the targets being used in the tests do not adequately represent actual threats and urges for more complexity. Christie’s report is available on the CDI website at cdi.org
10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID
=6&from_page=index.cfm.
(Los Angeles Times, Jan. 22, 2004; Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2004)>>
Now look at the deployment date the President chose, hmmm...:
<<The Washington Post reports (Feb. 2, 2004) that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans to speed up its deployment of a Ground-based Midcourse Missile Defense (GMD) system so that interceptors will start to be put in the ground in May or June instead of by October. After the software of the Cobra Dane tracking radar, situated at Shemya, Alaska, is updated around July, the MDA believes that the GMD could go “on alert” and be operational. This would be months ahead of the presidentially mandated deadline of having an initial operational deployment by October 2004. According to a senior military official, this decision was not politically motivated, but came out of the reasoning that, “If we could have some capability, we'd be negligent not to put it out as early as we could.” This accelerated deployment comes on the heels of news stories last month that chief weapons tester Thomas Christie was worried that his office would have insufficient data to make realistic assessments of the missile defense systems’ progress.>>
As I said, to the dismay of scientists, the sexy project is being _rushed along_. It certainly looks like Candidate Bush, not Christie, is setting the project schedule. Meanwhile, low-on-voter-radar cargo inspection is languishing. That's effective policy?
John |
