|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Target Date for Fielding U.S. Missile Defense Was Not Politically Set, Official Says By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. military official disputed suggestions by a Democratic legislator yesterday that a Sept. 30 deadline to begin operating elements of a national missile defense system was set to help President George W. Bush in the November election (see GSN, Feb. 3). The date was chosen by the Missile Defense Agency for “internal management purposes” only and not required by the Bush administration, said agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish at a hearing of the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. “One [reason] was that we needed a date for people to work to. And secondly, we needed to measure ourselves, as to what the progress would be, in an enormous, complex activity,” he said. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) suggested the date selection was politically motivated to support Bush’s re-election. “It appears to me, unfortunately, that we’re rushing to deploy it and claim that we’ve deployed it, and have pictures taken and backs slapped to meet a date that has artificially been put out by the administration for political reasons,” she said. Bush vowed to deploy an effective national missile defense system “at the earliest possible date” when campaigning in 2000 and in December 2002 ordered operations to begin “in 2004,” avoiding a specific date. Tauscher suggested that the administration, by declaring that elements of the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system would ready for operation in October, is seeking to imply that the system would have greater capabilities than it would actually have. “I feel deeply concerned that they trot people like you out, who have tremendous service and tremendous loyalty to this country, to represent a point of view that is more ideologically driven than it is by facts,” she said. “Well, I can’t speak to the politics of that type of thing,” said Kadish. “We’ve been working hard for over six years now in the GMD element towards this date. And I think if you review my testimony even four years ago, I was saying [that] the calendar year 2005 would be the time frame we were going to do this, and September, October this year is pretty close to that,” he said. A Specific GoalA review of public statements and documents gives no indication that the administration directed the agency to choose the Sept. 30 date for initial operations. Both civilian and military officials and contractors, though, have cited it as the target. In 2000, Kadish did testify that the Pentagon could produce an initial capability “by 2005” if then-President Bill Clinton gave the go-ahead. The Pentagon became more specific after Bush took office, however, setting a goal of installing an initial “test bed” of five interceptor missiles in Alaska by fiscal 2004, which ends Sept. 30. Kadish told the subcommittee yesterday that officials then selected the date because it was when they “postulated” the test bed would be ready. Steering clear of a specific date, Bush in December 2002 declared his administration’s objective to have initial operations “beginning in 2004.” The Pentagon said that would consist of 10 interceptors. Congressional testimony the following spring, however, suggested the agency and senior Pentagon officials continued to view Sept. 30 as the deadline. “The department’s plans are to add by the end of FY 2004 one more Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) at Fort Greely in Alaska for a total of six GBIs at that site, and four interceptors at Vandenberg, Air Force Base, for a total of up to 10 interceptors at both sites,” Kadish said in written testimony in March 2003. “As you know, we’re on a very aggressive time line to deliver in 19 months, that initial capability and in support of the Missile Defense Agency,” Navy Adm. James Ellis, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said that month, of the deadline. This week, at a conference in Washington sponsored by the agency, one of the lead contractors posted a clock above its booth counting down the seconds until the date for initial defensive operations. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said by e-mail that the date was a goal, not a deadline, intended for having “up to” 10 missiles in place, and not necessarily on alert. “There has never been any direction, and certainly no “deadline” set, to have a certain number of interceptors operational and on alert by a specific date,” he said. Despite the target date, the agency disclosed in February it would not have all 10 missiles in place and activated by Sept. 30 (see GSN, Feb. 3). Tauscher and other Democrats yesterday argued the system is being imprudently hurried into service, noting that key pieces of the complex developmental system would not be in place for some time, and that technological immaturity meant the system has not been tested under operationally realistic conditions. “We know when the [target] missile’s going to be shot. We know its trajectory. We know its location. We have a little beeper on it that tells us, ‘Here I am. Here I am. Come get me,’” Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said of previous system tests. “Rushing something into the field just to meet an arbitrary date on a calendar is not something we can strongly endorse,” said the panel’s senior Democrat, Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas. Untold Capability Kadish acknowledged “artificialities” in the testing so far, but said he believed system elements have been shown to offer some initial defensive capability. “We are now to the point where I believe that technology is going to support having a capability to defend the country where there is zero capability today,” he said. Kadish said the initial capability would be “very basic,” but he and other officials would not say exactly what level of protection the system might provide. “There will be an inherent capability there. Now, how capable that is, is another issue, and that will be addressed in the building,” said Christie, apparently referring to the Pentagon. I can “assure you that to the best of our technical ability, we are making sure that the combatant commanders and our political leaders, from the secretary [of defense] on down, understand what it is we have. And I can assure you it’s not being overstated,” Kadish told the panel. The Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Thomas Christie acknowledged yesterday that the operations goal has interfered with testing plans for the system. “The decision to exploit the test-bed elements for an initial defense operational capability has required some substantive changes in test planning,” he said. Christie said, though, that putting systems in place would help the agency test under more realistic conditions and ultimately field systems more quickly.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
