Obama: NATO to erect missile shield for Europe

[ray245]

LISBON, Portugal – President Barack Obama won NATO summit agreement Friday to build a missile shield over Europe, an ambitious commitment to protect against Iranian attack while demonstrating the alliance's continuing relevance — but at the risk of further aggravating Russia.

On another major issue, Obama and the allies are expected to announce plans on Saturday to begin handing off security responsibility in Afghanistan to local forces next year and to complete the transition by the end of 2014.

That end date is three years beyond the time that Obama has said he will start withdrawing U.S. troops, and the challenge is to avoid a rush to the exits as public opinion turns more sharply against the war and Afghan President Hamid Karzai pushes for greater Afghan control.

While celebrating the missile shield decision, Obama also made a renewed pitch for Senate ratification back in the U.S. of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, asserting that Europeans believe rejection of the deal would hurt their security and damage relations with the Russians.

Two key unanswered questions about the missile shield — will it work and can the Europeans afford it? — were put aside for the present in the interest of celebrating the agreement as a boost for NATO solidarity.

"It offers a role for all of our allies," Obama told reporters. "It responds to the threats of our times. It shows our determination to protect our citizens from the threat of ballistic missiles." He did not mention Iran by name, acceding to the wishes of NATO member Turkey, which had threatened to block the deal if its neighbor was singled out.

Under the arrangement, a limited system of U.S. anti-missile interceptors and radars already planned for Europe — to include interceptors in Romania and Poland and possibly a radar in Turkey — would be linked to expanded European-owned missile defenses. That would create a broad system that protects every NATO country against medium-range missile attack.

NATO plans to invite Russia to join the missile shield effort, although Moscow would not be given joint control. The gesture would mark a historic milestone for the alliance, created after World War II to defend Western Europe against the threat of an invasion by Soviet forces.

As for the U.S.-Russia arms treaty, Obama was backed by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark, who told reporters that the treaty, called New START and signed last April by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, would improve security not only in Europe but beyond.

"I would strongly regret if it is delayed," Fogh Rasmussen said. "A delay would be damaging for security in Europe, and I urge all parties involved to ratify it." Obama needs 67 votes in the Senate for ratification, and many Republicans have balked at even taking a vote before the new, more heavily GOP Congress convenes in January.

The allies opened their summit by agreeing on the first rewrite of NATO's basic mission — formally called its "strategic concept" — since 1999. They reaffirmed their bedrock commitment that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all. In that context, the agreement to build a missile defense for all of Europe is meant to strengthen the alliance.

What remains in conflict, however, is the question of the future role of nuclear weapons in NATO's basic strategy. The document members agreed to Friday says NATO will retain an "appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities" to deter a potential aggressor. Germany and some other NATO members want U.S. nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe.

Non-government advocates of the German view were quick to criticize what they saw as a missed opportunity here for further nuclear disarmament.

"In an astonishing demonstration of weakness, NATO heads of state have failed to tackle the Cold War legacy of the deployment of U.S. nuclear gravity bombs in Europe, threatening the credibility of NATO members' claims to be interested in non-proliferation and global disarmament," said Paul Ingram, executive director of the British American Security Information Council in London.

The specter of continued stalemate in Afghanistan hung over the Lisbon summit.

Karzai will be joining the NATO allies for the Saturday session, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, is to make a closed-door presentation spelling out his vision of how to make a transition to Afghan control. Petraeus is expected to emphasize that stepped-up military operations this year, with the addition of thousands more U.S. combat troops, have made strides toward weakening the Taliban and eventually creating the conditions for peace negotiations. But he also is believed to be concerned that the transition not turn into a departure before Afghanistan is stable.

Obama said Afghanistan, launch pad for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, must get ready for the start of a shift away from reliance on U.S. and NATO combat power "as we move toward a new phase, a transition to Afghan responsibility beginning in 2011 with Afghan forces taking the lead for security across Afghanistan by 2014."

A key question: Will Afghan security forces and the central government be ready to take full responsibility by then?

Mark Sedwill, the top NATO civilian official in Afghanistan, told reporters in Lisbon that it was possible the transition could be completed before 2014, although it's not yet clear whether even that date will mark the end of NATO combat there.

A member of Karzai's delegation to the summit, former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani, said in an Associated Press interview that once 2014 is set as the target date, NATO needs to work with Kabul to establish milestones to get there.

"We as Afghans are responsive to our public opinion, and our public opinion is raising these issues, and what is fortunate is now, NATO has become ... a listening organization," Ghani said on the sidelines of the summit.

Stating the U.S. view in clear terms, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell had said Thursday that 2014 is an "aspirational goal," not a deadline either for Afghan forces to take full control or for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who met privately with Karzai on Friday, said earlier that despite the economic burdens faced by much of Europe and the U.S., she believes the war campaign must go on.

"The challenge posed by radical extremists who utilize terror to promote their agenda is one that threatens the people of Portugal, the people of Europe, the people of the United States and, indeed, nations around the world," Clinton said.

Her comments seemed aimed at slowing any rush to withdrawal by allies who believe military force is not the solution in Afghanistan. Canada, for example, is ending its combat mission next year while keeping 950 troops there in a support role.

The summit comes in a pivotal period for NATO, whose relevance is questioned by some who view the alliance as a relic. The adversary that prompted NATO's creation in 1949 — the Soviet Union along with its Warsaw Pact allies — no longer exists.

After NATO's rapid expansion over the past decade and a half — growing from 16 members to 28 — the gap in military prowess between the U.S. and most of the rest of the alliance has widened to the point where the basic nature of the defense partnership is in doubt.

Rasmussen told Friday's opening session that it's time for NATO countries to start "cutting fat and investing in muscle."

This is where the U.S. push for a NATO missile defense comes in. It would require a lot of money from European countries — estimated at 200 million euros, or about $260 million, over 10 years — and a commitment to a more active type of defense.

It also risks aggravating Russia, which has expressed worry that missile defenses could undermine the deterrent value of its own nuclear arsenal.

Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, took a positive view of prospects for working with Moscow.

"I believe we will find Russia and NATO will now decide that this is a time we move forward together on how to cooperate," said Daalder, though he said Saturday's meetings weren't likely to result in concrete agreements on missile defense cooperation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_ ... ato_summit

[Shroom Man 777]

I thought Obama was trying to make nice with Russia. Then he goes around and does this? Man. That's definitely not gonna go well with Putin.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I thought Obama was trying to make nice with Russia. Then he goes around and does this? Man. That's definitely not gonna go well with Putin.

He's trying to juggle being nice to Russia and looking out for our allies and our own security concerns. If you read the article he talked to Russia about allowing the NATO shield to cover them as well, obviously it's not going to happen as Russia would just make their own, but it is a nice gesture. If Russia gets mad it's because they're upset that our honoring our commitment to the NATO nations who joined during the 4-6th enlargement, that were all previously Soviet or Warsaw Pact, will make it harder to bring them back under their sphere of influence.

[Patroklos]

In general this would be exactly what Bush was doing and Obama canceled. Lets see if the all the the OMG RUSSIA conspiracy theorists show up again.

[Ritterin Sophia]

In general this would be exactly what Bush was doing and Obama canceled. Lets see if the all the the OMG RUSSIA conspiracy theorists show up again.

Can you say that again except a little less disjointed?

[MKSheppard]

In general this would be exactly what Bush was doing and Obama canceled. Lets see if the all the the OMG RUSSIA conspiracy theorists show up again.

Except delayed by a decade and a half, and using a much inferior defense -- SM-3 versus GBI.

[wautd]

Well, that's a waste of money. A missile shield for what? Against who? Or is simply pissing of the Ruskies a good thing?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Well, that's a waste of money.

How much is a European city, say the capital of your nation, worth to you?

A missile shield for what? Against who? Or is simply pissing of the Ruskies a good thing?

I question whether you read the article since the threats it's aimed at are mentioned and I know you have no clue that the system is useless against Russian missiles. It's too close to where they launch from so they're on a tail chase the entire time and will run out of fuel before it can intercept., the only missiles this is aimed at are those in the Middle East.

It also happens to remove the excuse of 'he has WMDs!' from the list of excuses that the US and our European allies can use to justify adventurism.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It also happens to remove the excuse of 'he has WMDs!' from the list of excuses that the US and our European allies can use to justify adventurism.

Not really. They can just say that Badguy X is going to sneak WMDs in by ships, use drones (remember Saddam's supposed drone fleet?), give the WMD to terrorists (never happen), or some other excuse.

It's a waste of money in my opinion. The only way that Iran is going to shoot missiles at Europe is if they participate in an attack on Iran, and that's much more cheaply avoided by just not attacking.

[Thanas]

Depending on the cost and whoever ends up controlling it, this is a good or a bad thing.

[TimothyC]

I've been harsh on President Obama in the past (on the topic of missile defense), but for this I say Bravo!

And It's about damn time. I do seriously hope that the Europeans pay for a good chunk of the costs though.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Great, ANOTHER expensive defence project for us Brits to pay for. Goodie

Seriously, I know the rticle said Iran, but I think they would more likely want to nail Israel (as they have publicly said in the past IIRC) or the US. Is this really necessary?

[Illuminatus Primus]

As if additional proof was needed that party-government in the U.S. is allowed flexibility in only one direction: the Right.

[Sarevok]

I dont understand the hate for a defensive technology at all. Missile defense is victimless. Interceptions of ballistic missiles do not kill anybody. In worst case scenario they may save millions of lives.

[iborg]

Great, ANOTHER expensive defence project for us Brits to pay for. Goodie

Seriously, I know the rticle said Iran, but I think they would more likely want to nail Israel (as they have publicly said in the past IIRC) or the US. Is this really necessary?

Of course. Not only does it keep Europe firmly under America's military and diplomatic leadership, but it also funnels European money towards American R&D. What's not to like ?

[Fire Fly]

Great, ANOTHER expensive defence project for us Brits to pay for. Goodie

Seriously, I know the rticle said Iran, but I think they would more likely want to nail Israel (as they have publicly said in the past IIRC) or the US. Is this really necessary?

It would only cost European countries of NATO $26 million USD or 20 million euro per year.

This is where the U.S. push for a NATO missile defense comes in. It would require a lot of money from European countries — estimated at 200 million euros, or about $260 million, over 10 years — and a commitment to a more active type of defense.

Seems like a pretty good deal; assuming costs are evenly spread across, European NATO member states would only be paying roughly $1 million USD per year.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's not so bad then. But I just can't see the point of spending even more money when Britain is strapped for cash as it is

[[R_H]]

That's not so bad then. But I just can't see the point of spending even more money when Britain is strapped for cash as it is

200 million Euros over ten years is pocket change for any Western European nation. IMO, it's money well spent.

[Thanas]

If it comes out of the Defence budget though then I bet Afghanistan will get less troops though.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I dont understand the hate for a defensive technology at all. Missile defense is victimless. Interceptions of ballistic missiles do not kill anybody. In worst case scenario they may save millions of lives.

Actually, the usual "worst case scenario" presented by its critics is that it negates MAD, convinces the leadership of the defended country that they can win a nuclear war and causes the loss of millions of lives. Another claim is that it encourages the buildup of massive civilization-ending nuclear arsenals in order to overwhelm the defenses. And another is that it encourages the use of nuclear weapons by nations with missile defenses against nations that have too few missiles to reliably overwhelm the defense; such as nuking Iran even if they do get nuclear weapons in this case.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Actually, the usual "worst case scenario" presented by its critics is that it negates MAD, convinces the leadership of the defended country that they can win a nuclear war and causes the loss of millions of lives.

Except it doesn't at least not for America and Europe: Before the Cuban Missile Crisis NATO had overwhelming nuclear superiority to make a first strike option a viable method of winning the Cold War then and there, the European NATO powers would've gotten a pretty serious bloody nose and America would've take a handful of ICBM but the USSR would most certainly have lost.

[Sea Skimmer]

All they are talking about doing is adding a capability for stuff that’s already approved by European powers and the US so they can talk to each other and share data. Mainly French SAMP/T, US-Germany-Italy MEADS, and the Dutch SM-3 capability will now have funding for datalinks to talk to US SM-3 sites in eastern Europe. The biggest affect of that would US radars in Eastern Europe and the UK could warn the European radars which are all smaller and shorter ranged.

This is the most utterly minimal step at could be done, and people think It’s excessive? NATO has been sharing air defense radar data since the 1950s and jointy owns operates the second largest E-3 fleet on the planet. Modern technology had made ballistic missiles common weapons of wars, that is just reality. European leaders are not in fact dumb enough to keep denying that, its amazing. As for the cost its almost trivial and less then that of two Typhoon fighters. The US easily spends 1 billion dollars a year per 1,000 men it has in Afghanistan meanwhile. European deployments are cheaper because its closer and the deployments are less lavish in terms of aircraft but its still into the billions being spent.

[Stark]

Missile defence is certainly inevitable (alone with the decline of ICBMs in general), but its not hard to understand why people oppose it in various ways, particularly after the cold war.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Actually, the usual "worst case scenario" presented by its critics is that it negates MAD, convinces the leadership of the defended country that they can win a nuclear war and causes the loss of millions of lives.

Except it doesn't at least not for America and Europe: Before the Cuban Missile Crisis NATO had overwhelming nuclear superiority to make a first strike option a viable method of winning the Cold War then and there, the European NATO powers would've gotten a pretty serious bloody nose and America would've take a handful of ICBM but the USSR would most certainly have lost.

So what? You talk as if "a handful of ICBMs" would be something other than a massive disaster. And I'm sure the Europeans would have loved being America's human sacrifice. And that's all assuming you are right.

[Phantasee]

NATO has been sharing air defense radar data since the 1950s and jointy owns operates the second largest E-3 fleet on the planet.

Who owns and operates the largest?