The Pentagon’s release of the Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report confirmed that North Korea could be able to deploy a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile capable of striking the United States within the next decade.

The Washington Times reports that the review expressed serious concern over North Korea’s two underground tests and its attempt to develop a long-range missile.

The Pentagon’s review also highlighted U.S. intelligence’s concerns toward the Iranian nuclear program and their pursuit of “long-range ballistic missiles.” The report comes a day after Iran announced that it had launched a rocket into space, calling attention to the regime’s serious efforts to gain this dangerous technology.

The real concern is over how the United States can protect against such threats and ensure a credible deterrent to promote regional stability in the Middle East and East Asia. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has requested $8.4 billion dollars for the Missile Defense Agency.  The internal structure of this budget will serve to shift the U.S. missile defense posture away from defending against long-range missile attacks and toward countering short- and medium-range missiles. This plan is further outlined in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report.

Despite Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the intelligence estimates that North Korea could reach the U.S. with a missile within the decade, the Pentagon plan to deploy advanced variants of the SM-3 missiles will have “some capability to knock out long-range missile warheads” and will not be ready until 2020.

Regarding the cancelled deployment of interceptors in Easter Europe, the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring writes, “The plan sets up a false choice between long- and short-range defenses in terms of sequencing, when the U.S. needs to field defenses against both short-range and longer-range missiles immediately.”

The Department of Defense (DOD) has released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review, conducted from March 2009 through January 2010. Download the 61-page report in PDF.  

In assessing the ballistic missile threat around the world, DOD found the threat to be growing. As technology improves, missiles are becoming more accurate and farther-reaching. Ballistic missile systems are also more flexible and mobile. These trends are particularly disturbing as rogue states continue developing long-range weapons and nuclear capability. Last year, Iran test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and Southern Europe . Intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] have a longer range than the Sajjil.

"There is some uncertainty about when and how this type of [ICBM] threat to the U.S. homeland will mature," states the report, "but there is no uncertainty about the existence of regional threats. They are clear and present. The threat from short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs) in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships is growing at a particularly rapid pace." 

DOD's recommended priorities for the U.S. include testing new capabilities before deployment, testing under realistic operational conditions, and adapting as threats shift.  

DOD contends that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense presently protects the U.S. against ICBM attacks from Iran and North Korea . To maintain this "advantageous position" as the threat grows, DOD says the U.S. will: 

Maintain readiness and continue to develop existing operational capabilities at Fort

Greely, Alaska , and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California .

Complete the second field of 14 silos at Fort Greely to hedge against the possibility that additional deployments become necessary.

Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle East .

Invest in further development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat matures.

Increase investments in sensors and early-intercept kill systems to help defeat missile defense countermeasures. 

Pursue a number of new GMD system enhancements, develop next generation missile defense capabilities, and advance other hedging strategies including continued development and assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor.

"Some experts question the report's conclusions. For example, the Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring believes the threat to the homeland is absolutely imminent, which leaves the U.S. vulnerable to strategic surprises and risks the lives of millions of Americans. Our solutions and strategies could well be more imminent than future oriented"

The Heritage Foundation’s 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age will be presented on February 10, at 7 p.m. at the Charles Hotel, Harvard Square, One Bennett St. in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This one-hour documentary highlights the gripping reality that in 33 minutes or less a ballistic missile could destroy a major U.S. city. Despite the immediate danger, American missile defense is not fully equipped to prevent this potential disaster, leaving the United States vulnerable to potential attacks from rogue regimes such as North Korea and other enemies.

James Carafano, Ph. D., director of the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, will speak after the presentation on recent missile defense developments and the future prospects for improving our defense systems. Guests are encouraged participate in the discussion and ask questions about this important issue. 

This free event begins with a reception at 6 p.m., and you must register at www.myheritage.org/Cambridge. Please e-mail specialevents@heritage.org for more information.  

Recent events have exposed serious inconsistencies in President Obama’s missile defense strategy during his first year in office. Analyzing the administration’s missile defense polices raises questions over the future of missile defense for the United States.

While Obama has been scaling back missile defense since he slashed its funding in the FY 2010 budget, eliminated the F-22 Raptor program, and cancelled a promise to field interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic, China has continued advancing its own missile defense program. 

On January 12, China successfully tested its first land-based missile-defense system. In anticipation of the U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, the Chinese took this provocative action without warning the Pentagon

Within the same week, the United States deployed Patriot missiles in Poland to the Russian border, despite the administration’s decision to cancel the missile defense system for its NATO allies last year. This recent action shows how the Obama administration’s actions give mixed signals on missile defense. It may be important for American national security, but not important enough to fully fund the most effective systems.

The Obama administration claims that the decision to replace the ground-based interceptors in Eastern Europe with the cheaper and less effective sea-based system was not a political decision designed to appease Russia, but a strategic move based on calculations that this system was unnecessary to guard against the Iranian threat.

If you trust Vice President Joe Biden’s assessment, you too may be “much less concerned” about the Iranian threat.

However, a look at the obvious should lead to a far different conclusion. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime has steadfastly continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons despite international condemnation and several rounds of sanctions, while provoking its regional tension with continued missile tests.

Preventing Iran from gaining the ability to deliver a long-range missile should be a top priority for the United States, and despite the vice president’s optimism, the Obama administration recently took a step in the right direction on this issue. 

The United States’ decision to deploy ground-based Patriot missiles in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to complement a strengthened shield of sea-based interceptors should put greater pressure on Iran.

However, there is still more to do to move from the ambivalence of the current strategy to guarantee a missile defense posture that will ensure success and pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

The failure of a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California highlights the need for improvement, especially given that the defense budget cut funding for the GMD program by 35% last year and reduced the number of interceptors in California and Alaska from 40 to 33.

The test was meant to simulate an attack from Iran, and these are the same interceptors justifying the elimination of ground-based interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Behind all of this looms the ongoing effort to renew the START treaty with Russia that expired last December. The outcome of this treaty will potentially outline the course for upholding Obama’s promise to eliminate nuclear weapons. Despite his rhetoric, the new defense budget allocates an increase in funding for nuclear weapons research, hardly a step towards the president’s interpretation of the “vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.”

What good will further nuclear research do if the U.S. refuses to fully fund the most effect missile defense systems it already has available to it?

There are important issues at stake in the arms control negotiations, most importantly transparency and verification, as the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring has pointed out. Those interests may be sacrificed in favor of an incomplete agreement.

The Heritage Foundation’s Owen Graham writes, “President Barack Obama's haste to conclude the treaty and make progress on the ‘road to zero’ (a world without nuclear weapons) is damaging the arms control process.”

Maintaining a nuclear deterrent remains a center piece of United States foreign policy, and ensuring that American missile defenses are adequate to protect the United States from Iran, North Korea, or any of the 28 nation-states with ballistic missiles must be a priority for this administration. It is time to clear up the inconsistencies and give missile the defense the full effort it deserves.

Monday, the Pentagon released its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) as the Obama Administration announced the budget for FY 2011. The QDR is intended to outline a vision for American military strategy and defense against potential threats to national security over the next 20 years by establishing a plan for future defense programs. As expected, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new vision for the military’s strategic planning.

Specifically, the Pentagon is moving in a direction that puts more emphasis on preparing for a wider range of threats, while abandoning the long-held strategy of preparing American military forces to fight two conventional wars.

This strategy was amended in the 2001 QDR, which established what is known as the 1-4-2-1 defense posture. In brief, it provides for the defense of the homeland, extension of deterrence in four different regions, and the ability to defeat two enemies in conventional combat while achieving “decisive success” in one of the four regions.

This new vision for the American defense posture is an expected change from this administration, which has demonstrated a desire to scale back American forces. Former U.S. Senator Jim Talent and Heritage Foundation Fellow Mackenzie Eaglen write, “Abandoning the two-war construct in the QDR would justify a cutback in force levels.”

Gates argues that the present structure is "too confining and did not represent the real world that ... our military forces are going to face in the future."

However, real concern still exists over whether the government has resourced the military for the breadth of commitments it is required to meet. In a recently published WebMemo, Eaglen writes, “Retaining the crucial two-war construct is important, but throwing in the kitchen sink of every other conceivable mission while not proposing a larger force defies reality and requirements that are already under-met.”

Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs is accepting applications for Ernest May and Stanton Foundation fellows until February 15, 2010. Both fellowship programs will be housed at the Belfer Center and offer 10-month stipends. Decisions are expected by March 15, 2010.

Ernest May Fellowship

The Ernest May fellowship aims to help build the next generation of men and women who will bring professional history to bear on strategic studies and major issues of international affairs. Fellows are expected to devote some portion of their time to collaborative endeavors, as arranged by the project director. They are also expected to complete a book, monograph, or other significant publication during their period of residence. The Ernest May Fellowships honor Ernest May, Charles Warren Professor of American History, a member of the Belfer Center's board of directors, and a faculty affiliate of the Center's International Security Program, who passed away in June 2009.

The Ernest May Fellows will be housed at the Belfer Center and participate in the activities of the Center as part of the International Security Fellows group. They will have full access to all Harvard research resources. Niall Ferguson, Laurence Tisch Professor of History at Harvard and member of the Belfer Center Board of Directors, will serve as point of contact and mentor for the fellows.

For more information on the Ernest May Fellowship, go to: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fellowships/may-fellows.html

Stanton Foundation Fellowship

The Belfer Center's International Security Program (ISP) has been has been invited to participate in a new nuclear security fellowship program funded by the Stanton Foundation. These fellowships are for predoctoral and postdoctoral scholars and junior faculty. The purpose of the fellowships is to stimulate the development of the next generation of thought leaders in nuclear security by supporting research that will advance policy-relevant understanding of the issues. Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows will be joint International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom (MTA) research fellows. Fellows are expected to produce a written product at the end of the fellowship (e.g. an article, report, or book).

For more information on the Stanton Foundation Fellowship, go to: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fellowships/stanton.html

by Paul E. K. Mullan

“The Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) is a nonpartisan organization working to modernize and improve the U.S. national security system to better protect the American people against 21st century dangers.

Funded and supported by Congress, foundations and corporations, PNSR has carried out one of the most comprehensive studies of the U.S. national security system in American history.”

The site is very comprehensive basing its recommendations on a variety of case studies they have performed over the years. Such studies cover the Cold War to Hurricane Katrina response and its impact on our national security.

As their recent report (Sept 30th 2009) to President Obama began:

“In November 2008, the Project on National Security Reform delivered a landmark report, entitled Forging a New Shield, to President George W. Bush. In that report, our Guiding Coalition, whose alumni include General James Jones, Admiral Dennis Blair, Mr. Jim Steinberg, Ms. Michele Flournoy affirmed unanimously that the national security of the United States of America is fundamentally at risk.”

While their larger reports provided to all levels of government are informative to any reader, the more commonly updated “blog” portion of their site tends to link to articles composed by a variety of authors and news sources. The posting frequency has decreased, but I recommend you go through the archives because while some of the actual information is not as pertinent at this point in time the thought processes can be taken and applied to current conditions on the metaphorical ground.

The views expressed in this post are the views of the author and not necessarily those of The Heritage Foundation.

In another affirmation of the truism, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” the President’s base has noticed that his promise to push through an amnesty bill looks pretty hollow. “Thirty-seven words,” writes Ruben Navarrette Jr  for CNN, “In this week’s State of the Union address -- which was more than 7,000 words long and lasted longer than an hour -- all President Obama devoted to the issue of immigration reform was 37 measly words.” 

Ruben is right. Something is afoot.

The White House commitment to amnesty is anemic.

Loss of appetite for amnesty does not end with Obama. The President expects the Congress to lead. Speaker Pelosi has already said the House won’t take up the bill unless the Senate passes it.  Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY has so little confidence in his bill that he would not bring it to the floor before Christmas out fear members would be savaged over the proposed legislation during the holiday break. The best guess is that they will throw something on the floor this spring, watch it die a quick death, and then claim: they tried.

Apparently, not everyone on the left thinks that is a good idea. Topping the list is Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos. He wrote a commentary for The Hill arguing the best way for the progressive cause to regain momentum is to push through a massive amnesty bill. He is dead wrong.

There are three reasons amnesty is not likely to happen—reasons that explain why Obama should rightly have a limited appetite for anything related to immigration reform.

1. The bill is a really bad idea. An amnesty bill won’t solve the problem of illegal immigration. It will just make it worse. We know that for a fact. That is exactly what happened in 1986.

2.  The notion that this is a winnable issue for the Congress is, pardon me, laughable. Pelosi can get any bill she wants passed in the House. All she needs is 218 votes. The Democrats control 256. She won’t move on immigration because she knows members will get hammered by the American people for endorsing amnesty.

3. It is wrong to frame immigration reform as a left-right issue and assert that liberals want to solve the problem and conservatives do not. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has been a strong proponent of honest and sensible reforms. 

No, Obama will walk away from amnesty because politically it’s a loser for him.

Sadly, the issue will only get solved when the White House quits playing politics with immigration and adopts the security, enforcement, citizenship, and workplace reforms needed to get employers the workers they need; protect US sovereignty and security; respect the rule of law; and address the issue of those unlawfully here in a rationale and compassionate manner.

Massive amnesty is not practical, rationale, compassionate, or fair. It’s a bad place to start.  

So far President Barack Obama has played softball with Iran, expressing a desire to discuss its formerly secret nuclear facilities and present nuclear ambitions, and Iran has refused. Obama wants Russia to issue tougher sanctions against the rogue state, and the former Soviet Union has refused. Now, the president is increasing land- and sea-based missile defense systems in the Persian Gulf to protect allies against the Iranian threat.

In his recent State of the Union speech, Obama said his "diplomatic efforts…strengthened our hand in dealing" with countries like Iran and North Korea. He said both countries are now more isolated because of their defiance and promised they would "face growing consequences." Are new defenses in the Gulf part of that promise?

According to the New York Times, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait have accepted the missile defense systems. Last month U.S. General David Petraeus said, "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front." He said the buildup in the Gulf includes eight Patriot missile batteries. Last week we blogged about Poland's plans to deploy Patriot missiles and install a missile defense base with several launch pads. The base will be manned by around 100 U.S. troops.

Petraeus said Aegis cruisers with advanced radar and antimissile systems to intercept medium-range missiles are patrolling the Persian Gulf. This reflects Obama's focus on Iran's shorter- and medium-range missiles. Last year he canceled Bush-era agreements to deploy missile defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic. He doesn't believe Iran is capable of launching a long-range missile with a nuclear warhead.

The administration is playing up the "defense" part of the Persian Gulf missile buildup, but it's doubtful Iran cares about the nature of the system. Missiles are missiles, and the activity in the Persian Gulf will be seen for what it is: a warning. Will Iran heed it?

Since running away at Tora-Bora, Bin Laden has mainly served as al Qaeda “propagandist in chief.”  His main task is to make al Qaeda appear relevant.

Osama spin is reflected through his video and audio tapes in two ways.

First, al Qaeda’s chief makes veiled and vague threats. That way if something happens he can take credit for it. If nothing happens, he doesn’t lose credibility.

Second, Bin Laden stays topical. He links al Qaeda’s goals and aspirations to events in the news. So, for example, when violence spiraled out of control in Iraq, he called the country—the central battleground for his cause. (On the other hand, when terrorists in the country got whacked right and left, he stopped talking about Iraq). More recently, Bin Laden tried to take credit for the attempted Christmas day bombing of a Detroit bound plane. (Though the group that launched the attack is linked to al Qaeda many doubt Bin Laden played any operational role).

In his latest screed from his cave in Pakistan, Bin Laden attacked the United States over global warming. According to a report in The Washington Post, he “blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.”

Bin Laden must be getting desperate for ideas. Now, he is not even creative. He is just the latest in the long line of those that have jumped on the climate change bandwagon for no other purpose than to vilify and attack the United States.

The truth is the United States already does more than most countries to protect the environment. Indeed, the more developed economies are, the more they do to take care of the environment. “Evidence abounds,” points out the Heritage Foundation’s Terry Miller and Anthony Kim, “ [t]he Environmental Performance Index (EPI), published by the World Economic Forum, the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, provides ‘a composite index of current national environmental protection efforts.’ Levels of economic freedom and the EPI are positively correlated at a statistically significant level. The freer the economy, the higher -- and more sustainable -- the level of environmental protection.” The surest way to save the earth is to promote economic freedom. 

Sadly, it is not only terrorists like Bin Laden that advocate the opposite. Debunking their idiotic ideas is the first step to making them irrelevant.

With regards to Bin Laden, however, that is not enough. Perhaps the most important take away from this latest tape is that winning the war in Afghanistan and rooting Bin Laden out of Pakistan matters. Words can kill. As long as al Qaede holds out in Pakistan they will give hope to their cause. When they are crushed, their cause will die with them. Defeating terrorism means crushing its campaign to spread ideas and arguments as well as taking out its leadership, support networks and sanctuaries.