NewsMax.com
Monday, Feb. 5, 2001

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, once a secretary of defense, may be up against greater political problems at home than abroad over this issue.

Less than one month into office, they are already wrestling with the difficult trade-off that is dividing Democrats and Republicans and also separating Republicans from Republicans.

The question Bush and Cheney must answer, and soon, is: Should they go with the missile-shield system they can get running more quickly or the one with greater capability of providing ultimately the surest defense against missile attacks from rogue nations – or worse?

Here are the considerations they must weigh:

• There may not be enough defense funds available to take the most-expensive route and also do all that Bush is determined to do in the way of better pay and conditions for America's armed-forces personnel.

• America's adversaries abroad, which include not only terrorist organizations but also nations such as Communist North Korea, Iran, Iraq, even Russia and Communist China, may not wait the several years it will take for the United States to construct the more-elaborate shield.

• By going with the less-ambitious plan, the Bush-Cheney administration could likely get it through Congress before the risk arises of losing either or both houses to Democrats in 2002 or 2004.

• The cheaper, quicker plan is the one the Clinton-Gore administration was working on when Bush and Cheney replaced it Jan. 20, so it has some carry-over support from Democrats in Congress – which also means some residual GOP distrust for the plan on Capitol Hill.

• Then, there's the issue of whether the Clinton-Gore plan would actually work. It failed more of its tests than it passed.

Taking a look at those factors, the Los Angeles Times is reporting in its Monday issue that:

Some Republican lawmakers agree with Democrats that Bush should begin by building on the ground-based Clinton-Gore plan.

Other GOP members of Congress insist that plan is inadequate as well as flawed, that Bush and Cheney should strive for much-expanded systems based at sea and in space.

The earlier, ground-based plan was too confined, they argue, and what is needed is a system of defensive missiles targeted to shoot down incoming aggressive missiles shortly after they launch and are still slower and easier to hit.

And they also want those anti-missile missiles to be stationed in space or aboard ships moving about, making them more difficult for an aggressor to knock out.

Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security advisor, speaking Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition," called for a missile defense "more capable of dealing with the threats we face today, rather than the ones we faced 25 to 30 years ago."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the new administration is determined to proceed with plans for an adequate missile-defense system, and as soon as possible.

Bush, himself, in the presidential-election campaign, criticized the Clinton-Gore plan as not going far enough.

But officials of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which took part in designing the Clinton-Gore plan, said that approach is far closer to becoming reality than any other.

Some Republican lawmakers find that convincing:

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi said, "I think we should go forward with the system that has been developed and tested. The technology is ready and it should be deployed."

The Pentagon could always add more components later to the simpler plan, he said, cautioning that opting now for the larger system would leave the country unprotected longer.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona also favors starting with the ground-based system, adding other components later in a "layered" approach.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska, where the ground-based system would be sited, called it "the only national missile-defense system we have right now."

However, Steven A. Cambone, Rumsfeld's chief of staff and executive director of a blue-ribbon commission on the missile threat headed earlier by Rumsfeld, said the Clinton-Gore system should not be pursued.

Robert Joseph, a senior National Security Council official with responsibility for missile defense, said that system "has become so contrived that it will have only a minimal capability against near-term threats."

And Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank in Washington to which Rumsfeld has made financial contributions, said of the Clinton-Gore plan:

"You'd really be building it from scratch, and it would take longer, it would cost more and you'll have less to show for it."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Missile Defense