The Secretary Of Missile Defense

• Share

(3 of 3)

Meanwhile, Moscow's reaction was surprisingly mild. "It is hard not to agree with the President of the United States that the world is changing rapidly and new threats are appearing," President Vladimir Putin said. "We must counter these threats with well-thought actions." The calm demeanor is in keeping with his attempt to project Russia, impoverished as it is, as America's strategic peer. Russian officials also acknowledge they won't mind if the U.S. pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into a scheme they think will never work.

The Bush Administration coddled the European allies in the days leading up to last week's speech, sharing its content and having Bush phone leaders with sneak previews. The allies appreciated the vagueness of the speech because it hinted that they may be able to influence the shield's final shape. The key to Europe's opposition is the lack of an ABM Treaty successor. If the ABM pact collapses, it must be replaced "only by better ones or more effective ones," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said after Bush's speech. "We don't want there to be a new arms race." Playing their traditional roles, the British gave the strongest support to the Bush plan, and the French were the most opposed. "The Americans seem to think that if they just pound us over the head with their position enough times, we'll finally see the light," a French Defense Ministry official said.

Overseas concerns may influence just what layers Bush decides to deploy. The land-based plan is the selfish option. Even when expanded to two sites--Alaska and North Dakota, under current plans--the shield would protect only the U.S. and Canada. That would be particularly grating to nations like Britain and Denmark. After all, Washington wants them to permit the U.S. to make modifications to radar on their territory that is required to protect the U.S.--but not them--from missile attack.

The Navy's system has different complications. A missile-killing warship would have to be close to the enemy-rocket launch, sitting in international waters just off the coast of North Korea, for example. But if the rocket blasted off too far inland--from deep inside China, Iran, Iraq or Russia, for example--the Navy interceptor would be unable to catch it. That shortcoming pleases Moscow and Beijing, which would be beyond the ship-based system's reach.

There are cracks in the Administration's support for missile defense. Contrary to public perception, the U.S. military is not gung-ho on the idea. Budget plans now floating inside the Pentagon call for boosting missile-defense spending about $1 billion, or 20%, a year to more than $5 billion annually. But that's not nearly enough to build Bush's system, which could top $200 billion. Military leaders fear their planes, tanks and ships would have greater utility against future threats than a missile shield. And Powell, reflecting his military background and his new post, is cooler to missile defense than the hawkish Rumsfeld.

For his part, Rummy seems assured that he has the President's ear. At a recent weekend retreat to Camp David in the Maryland mountains, when the President and his entourage were headed off for a movie in the grounds' comfortable, couch-lined theater, Rumsfeld skipped the flick and thereby a chance to buddy up to the President. He shocked younger Bush aides by returning to his small cabin to catch up on some paperwork. Only the truly confident Washington player would have made such a choice.