Obama to Congress: Forget it!

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

President Obama's decision to cancel a plan to deploy defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic may have put him at odds with a 10-year-old requirement from Congress "to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense," according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Instead of the land-based system as proposed by the former Bush administration, the Obama administration envisions "stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies."

The Bush administration sought to deploy ground-based interceptors in Poland and early warning radars in the Czech Republic, a plan meant to save billions of dollars in missile defense spending. At the same time, it was designed not only to guard U.S. forces and allies overseas, but also the U.S. homeland, which was mandated by Congress.

The goal of the Bush administration missile defense system was to "defend (U.S.) allies and deployed forces in Europe from limited Iranian long-range threats and expand protection of (the) U.S. homeland," according to a February 2009 Congressional Budget Office report entitled, "Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe."

In doing its analysis of various missile defense options, the CBO looked at three approaches in addition to the Bush administration's proposal.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

The alternatives included the sea-based system which the Obama administration now has selected, mobile missile defenses located in Germany and Turkey and forward-positioned Kinetic Energy Interceptors also located in Germany and Turkey.

The CBO concluded the Bush administration proposal was preferable to the three alternative solutions. In fact, the Kinetic Energy Interceptors weren't even an option during the latest round of consideration since it was cut from the Pentagon's missile defense budget earlier this year.

"(The Missile Defense Agency's) proposed system would complement the coverage already available from U.S.-based interceptors by providing redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States," the CBO report said. "None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.

"Deploying Kinetic Energy Interceptors would add defense from a third redundant interceptor site for about 75 percent of the U.S. population in range of ICBMs from Iran.
Deploying land-based or sea-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptors would provide additional defense for about one-half or less of the U.S. population," the report added.

In effect, the proposed Obama administration sea-based approach offered the least protection as compared to the Bush administration proposal, and it was more expensive, since there would be added costs for specially equipped ships. In addition, it will take more time to deploy.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.