Missile defence and the defence of freedom

This is why former leaders of Central and Eastern European countries recently wrote an open letter to President Obama to remind him of the sacrifices they had made on behalf of freedom and the need for leadership now from Washington. It is also why Poland and the Czech Republic have bravely volunteered to host the "third site." Its deployment there makes the most strategic sense, both for the United States and our allies, and also represents the most cost-efficient option available to us.

As frustrating as this ongoing process is, it represents an important opportunity for the American people, the Congress, and our allies. At issue is whether missile defence represents a threat to the security and stability of the world or whether missile defence is, in fact, as Ronald Reagan said, the greatest hope the cause of peace has ever had.

It says a great deal about the world that enemies of freedom reflexively distrust missile defence, and that free people have difficulty understanding why anyone would find it even remotely controversial. It says even more about the United States and the American people that, even as the world's lone superpower, our greatest achievement in military technology is exclusively defensive in nature. No powerful society in history could ever make such a boast - indeed, no other society would want to.

Wrapped up in that fact is everything one needs to know about American exceptionalism - the clearest, truest, and most reliable fact in international affairs. Even when we discover ways to defend ourselves, Americans seek to share the benefits of that discovery with those nations who share our love of freedom. Missile defence is not a projection of American power, but of American ideals. Anyone who objects says more about himself than about America.

This was the case for those who blindly argued, in an age of unimaginable innovation, that missile defence was a technological impossibility. This was the case for those who howled in 1986 when Ronald Reagan said "Nyet" to abandoning missile defence, walked away from the Reykjavik Summit, and by doing so began the endgame of the Cold War.

Yet there are still those who believe, as President Obama suggested in Prague, that voluntary disarmament is the path to peace and who make spurious arguments about cost when the fact is that studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the Pentagon have demonstrated that ground-based interceptors in Poland are both the least expensive and most effective option available to us.

Defence of freedom

Aside from the ideals missile defence reflects, there remains another, far more practical reason for its deployment.

It is undeniable now that the President's overtures toward Moscow and away from Europe have gained us nothing. Nuclear and ballistic programs continue unimpeded in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere. Russia has announced its opposition to any new sanctions against Iran.

If history has taught us anything, it is that freedom is the exception, not the norm. It is not enough for democracies to "bear witness" to threats against freedom: those threats must be countered. Everywhere and always, liberty must be earned, won, and defended.

Missile defence represents freedom's ultimate shield - not just for us, but for friends of freedom around the world. It has the potential to both deter the aggressive impulses of freedom's enemies and strengthen the resolve of its friends, even in the most oppressive regimes. This, after all, is why missile defence is always unpopular with leaders who seek to subdue human freedom and welcomed by those willing to fight for it.

The question now is, "Which kind of leader does Barack Obama intend to be?"

Before the July summit in Moscow, several colleagues and I sent a letter to the President cautioning against any linkage or deal with the Russians on missile defence in or outside of negotiations for a new START treaty. Several more Senators have since sent letters of their own.

The President has yet to get the message, so let me be clear: if President Obama continues to insist on bargaining away US and European security in order to obtain Russian help with Iran, then he jeopardises the support necessary to ratify a new START treaty.

Unfortunately, hope is not a strategy, and abandoning friendships in order to achieve short-order diplomatic victories is foolish. Going forward, I sincerely hope President Obama will follow President Reagan's example and tell the Russians, "Nyet".