There was some heartburn in the comments about the heat-to-light ratio in Jeff’s post on the Washington Post and the Joint Threat Assessment on Iran. So let’s see if we can’t address the same topic from a slightly different angle.
Getting dismissive reactions from senior government officials is nothing new for outside experts who have examined big-ticket missile defense systems. After all, GMD isn’t just some narrowly technical matter. It’s also a political program, not fully subject to the normal rules of defense acquisition. It’s understandably close to the hearts of those who have made careers around it and sincerely believe in the vision of national security policy that it represents.
But one would hope that the EastWest Institute’s U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment, which was very critical of the Euro-GMD (or “third site”) proposal, could get a more respectful hearing in an independent newspaper. To my knowledge, the news side of the Post hasn’t reported on it, so a It certainly deserved better from the editorial page than only a bristling, blistering op-ed by two former officials is the only coverage that the paper has provided so far. The JTA report is not beyond criticism, but it’s a serious contribution, so this is unfortunate.
If the Post has not given readers a balanced or informative presentation, neither have many others. In general, there hasn’t been much coverage anywhere of questions raised about the third site’s viability, or much about the Ballistic Missile Defense Review being conducted by the Administration, which seems like the subtext and the target of the op-ed. And that’s really a shame.
Update. I stand highly corrected! (Thanks, Travis.) There was straight news coverage after all. My apologies to the news side of the house. I will refrain from lame excuses about the unreliable search engine at wpost.com, since I should have seen this in the first place. Comments on the op-ed stand.
yousaf | July 26, 2009
There is also a great deal of taxpayer money being distributed to private contractors in the missile defense enterprise.
Apologies for being repetitive, but as previously mentioned the Washington Post OpEd ought to have clearly stated that one of the co-authors has a conflict of interest.
“Schafer Corporation is a provider of scientific, engineering, systems integration, programmatic support and technical services/solutions, primarily to government clientele. Schafer has a national footprint supporting mission-critical programs for customers including the US Armed Services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Missile Defense Agency (MDA),…”
Although this should not disqualify Mr. Obering on holding forth on MDA in the WaPo, such vested interests ought to clearly highlighted so that readers can appreciate the potentially biased viewpoints of OpEd writers.
The real danger of missile defense is that our future political leaders may actually think it works and implement provocative policies which, even if they don’t invite a real test of the system, may result in some asymmetrical responses for which a missile defense is totally ineffective.
A leaky missile defense system — and all such defenses will be leaky at some level — would likely encourage Iran to build even more missiles and nukes (to be sure that some got through the ineffective “defense”) and to perfect other method of delivering the warhead (e.g. via boat, truck, from a ship via a SRBM, or via a cruise missile…etc…).
As reader FSB pointed out in the earlier post on this subject, missile defense is subject to the “Fallacy of the Last Move.”
The Other FSB | July 27, 2009
The so-called ‘heartburn’ has more to do with the pointless lambasting of the decision by The Washington Post to publish the Edelman/Obering op-ed than with the pros and cons of missile defense. Conservatives, and more to the point, conservatives who support missile defense, have been complaining for years about how they are treated by mainstream media such as The Washington Post. They finally get a rare break with the Edelman/Obering piece and Jeffery engages in the unedifying ‘the media isn’t fair’ game. Cry me a river. The Washington Post, like any other serious newspaper, is not obliged to be ‘fair’ in its opinion pages, and is certainly not obliged to publish retorts, even if they are written by such luminaries as Dick Garwin. This is Jeffery’s blog and he can do with it as he see fits, but this particular post by him struck a number of us as immature and embarrassing. Lastly, there’s something disturbing about a main current of opinion on ACW that contends that missile defense advocates should not be allowed any kind of chance to air their views in mainstream media. I have no truck with much of missile defense advocacy, but when people start demanding that such views be silenced they had better be careful lest others start demanding that the anti-missile defense viewpoint also be barred from mainstream media. That’s the rub, and too many at ACW are happily oblivious about it. I suggest they grow up.
Josh | July 27, 2009
It’s not quite so simple. The third site is an issue of serious public concern. Just look at the coverage that the Joint Statement received. But there’s been a news blackout on the technical issues, or something like it. Seriously, is this op-ed everything you think the public should know? Because that’s pretty much all that even reasonably attentive readers will know.
Plus, it (the op-ed) wasn’t any good.
FSB | July 27, 2009
Missile “defense” advocates have a right to voice their views, but not to waste taxpayer’s money.
Test the system realistically with real (functioning) countermeasures BEFORE fielding it, and some of the critics may be more accommodating.
BTW, WTF is spiral development but a handout to Raytheon and the Pentagon?
Independent experts have always disagreed with its technical feasibility.
Here is the latest opinion of outside experts who are not in the pocket of MDA.
Missile defense, like the F-22, will be hard to kill as it yields a lot of $$$$ for contractors and for the Pentagon. (Can you say “Raytheon”?) But it is an absolute technical and political boondoggle — make no mistake.
Some newspapers do make the right call, however.
Unfortunately, our pork-friendly senate will make sure taxpayer money keeps flowing to Raytheon and other contractors and military establishments in various other states.
Minimum wage earners are being taxed so that Raytheon fat-cats can sell us a system that does not work and has never been tested realistically — and even if it did it would do diddly-squat for a truck or boat nuke.
Proud to be an American.
The other FSB | July 27, 2009
A number of folks still do not seem to get it. The Washington Post, NY Times – whoever – really couldn’t give a sh*t whether the op-ed is a ‘good’ one (are folks seriously suggesting that the WaPo and others consult ACW about which missile defense op-ed is worthy of publication or not?). Furthermore, be it missile defense, RRW, climate change, energy security, or the price of fishcakes in Hong Kong, the mainstream media do not see it as their job to publish technical details about the efficacy of such issues – and nor should they. The charge that there is a news ‘blackout’ is naive and, frankly, silly. There are plenty of other open sources where such data is published for all who are interested. My beef is that Jeffrey and others seem to think that the media owes them a favor or special priviliges – they don’t, so get over it. ACW is a power for good, don’t squander it by going down the road of the lunatic GOP, Sarah Palin-line of how the media is ‘unfair’ or out to get you. Such attitudes are really unedifying and tend to indicate a paranoid mindset. So, again, grow-up and roll with the punches.
Josh | July 27, 2009
Perhaps some additional clarification would help. This isn’t about ACW. We have our own little soapbox, and aren’t in need of anyone else’s.
The point is — and I’m speaking now both as a Post subscriber and a citizen — I’d like my newspaper to have enough sense to recognize serious matters of public policy worthy of coverage from a neutral perspective. That’s what permits us to have an informed citizenry, rather than two armed camps blazing away at each other from the margins of an uninformed mass. Or, in the case of the Post op-ed page, just one armed camp blazing away.
Some guy once wrote,
But what if the newspapers don’t provide enough information for more than a tiny elite to have any understanding of the issues of the day?
Are national security and foreign policy not prime public concerns anymore? Or are the details just too boring?
At this point in America’s involvement in Iraq — which, you’ll recall, started with concerns about weapons of mass destruction — perhaps we should err on the side of more considered examination of the issues, not less.
I look forward to being able to call attention to the first serious, neutral, and accessible discussion of the technical merits of the third site proposal in a general-interest publication. If there have been any already, I just haven’t seen them.
FSB | July 27, 2009
In a sense, I do agree with “the other FSB” (dude/dudette, can you get a different handle?) — the Postol/Garwin rebuttal was far too wonky to be published in mainstream media.
They should instead have focused more on the inherent flaws and huge $$$$ waste and untested nature of the M’D‘A experiment. Most WaPo readers — and most politicos and MDA management — probably cannot handle long-division, let alone understand the technical dimensions of the radar placement etc.
Can the MDA please do one test of (working, this time) countermeasures in a surprise attack setting? Please.
- A Taxpayer who is concerned M’D‘A has been wasting my and my family and friends’ and fellow citizens’ tax dollars and making us less safe in the process
Travis Sharp | July 27, 2009
The Post actually did run a news item prior to publishing the Obering-Edelman piece.
It appeared May 19.
Joseph Logan | July 28, 2009
I think it’s reasonable to hold the Washington Post to a higher standard than other outlets. While not a perfect rag, it has a history and a legacy, and it would do well to protect and extend that. Yes, the opinion pages are for opinions, and that’s fine, but WaPo would do well to seek more balance in the opinions it publishes.
That said, it’s also perfectly fair to hold ACW to a higher standard as well. The analysis presented here and in the comments is unique, and there is a reputation to protect here as well. I don’t find the original post as objectionable as others do—just more vociferous in its condemnation of shoddy journalism.
The old saying is that one shouldn’t wrestle with a pig as you’ll only get muddy and the pig enjoys it. I don’t think ACW got all that muddy on this one.