Current and former U.S. officials briefed on the assessment's findings said the administration was expected to leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in the future. [...]The administration has also debated offering Poland and the Czech Republic alternative programs to reassure the two NATO members that the U.S. remains committed to their defense.
Poland, in particular, has lobbied the White House to deploy Patriot missile batteries -- the U.S. Army's primary battlefield missile-defense system -- manned by American troops as an alternative.
Although Polish officials supported the Bush plan, U.S. officials said they had indicated their primary desire was getting U.S. military personnel on Polish soil. Gen. Carter Hamm, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said Washington has begun talks with Polish officials about starting to rotate Europe-based American Patriot units into Poland for month-long training tours as a first step toward a more permanent presence.
"My position has been: Let's get started as soon as we can with the training rotations, while the longer-term stationing...is decided between the two governments," Gen. Hamm said in an interview.
Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
That WSJ article makes some good points. Though i think it underplays the more important aspect. My understanding of the issue is that as far as Poland and the Czech Republic are concerned, it is not the actual defense that the missile system provides to those countries that is at issue (the system itself is designed to protect all of Europe, for one; and two, it has no impact on Russia's ability to strike with missiles if it ever chose to do so). The issue is that the close working relationship between the US and those countries is a hedge against Russian aims to perpetuate the idea that Eastern Europe falls within the Russian sphere of influence.
ReplyDeleteIt remains to be seen what the administration does to reaffirm a US commitment to Eastern Europe's independence, but in cancelling the missile system, it can't help but suggest to Russia that the U.S. commitment is negotiable depending on Russian strength and objections.
That doesn't mean that the US can't make an even stronger case in the future; but given the current administrations seeming belief in a light global footprint as a way to engender good will, I don't think it likely that we'll see a bold initiative that clarifies America's view of Eastern European independence as a hedge against Russian interference.
Either way, I think it unavoidable that this action undermines the American position in Eastern Europe, if only temporarily.