Star Wars--Clever Politics in the Service of Bad Policy September/October 1996 FAS Public Interest Report (2 October 1996)
Americans Believe Increased Spending On Missile Defenses Is "Throwing Good Money After Bad" according to public opinion polls and focus groups conducted by the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.
Missile defense fails to take spot among campaign issues By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES 22 October 1996
The question of whether to de ploy a national defense against missile attack has received little attention during the presidential campaign.The issue was once slated to be a top campaign theme for Republican nominee Bob Dole. Mr. Dole refers in his stump speech to the need for a missile defense system, but he has not made it a center- piece of his campaign.
Foreign Policy `Success' By Jim Hoagland Thursday, September 12 1996; Page A27 The Washington Post
" ... Dole is leaving criticism of Clinton foreign policy to campaign surrogates John McCain and Richard Lu\gar. Trailing Clinton by 15 points in their own internal polling data, Dole and his campaign strategists believe that the candidate's only chance is to sell his tax cut, attack Clinton on drugs and relegate foreign policy to the back burner."Campaigning is about winning, not about running a foreign policy seminar," one of Dole's close associates says. "And he now has fewer than 60 days to convince the public that they have a direct, positive stake in his economic plan. Barring a disaster for American troops in Bosnia, foreign policy is not going to be Bob Dole's topic this year."
Missile Defense Failing To Launch as Voting Issue By Bradley Graham, Washington Post, Sunday, July 28 1996; Page A06 notes:
But apart from the surprise expressed when people learn no such
shield exists, there is little evidence to suggest the issue is catching
on among voters. And some GOP candidates for Congress
acknowledge doubts about its vote-getting potential, particularly
given the subject's complexity.
Led by GOP presidential candidate Robert J. Dole, Republicans
have pointed repeatedly to President Clinton's refusal to commit to
deploying an antimissile system as an example of what they call the
president's shortsighted, irresponsible management of national
security affairs. Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
have introduced legislation, called the Defend America Act, to
require installation of a system by 2003 that would protect against
at least limited missile attack.
Candidates Blow Missile-Defense Issue Out of Proportion; Politics: Republicans denounce a 'soft' defense policy. Democrats decry a 'Star Wars' revival. But both sides want essentially the same system.; By ART PINE - Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 28, 1996 Home Edition Section: PART A Page: A-15
Listen to the mounting debate over building a new national missile-defense system and you would think that the two major presidential candidates, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, are worlds apart.
... ... ...
But defense analysts say that despite the intensity of the debate, the cross-fire is basically a tempest in a missile silo--a classic example of how candidates, under pressure to come up with a winning issue for the campaign, can blow an issue out of proportion.In reality, both candidates believe that the United States should be developing a missile-defense system that would be ready to deploy by 2003, and both sides have the same plan in mind: using existing technology to build a system with limited clout.
It is the most expensive yet least-publicized spending program proposed in this presidential campaign. It is Bob Dole's plan to build a US missile defense system that some are calling "Star Wars - Part II."Dole hasn't publicized the contentious proposal because President Clinton has sought to co-opt the issue by pushing his own $10 billion missile-defense plan. In fact, one of the biggest differences between Clinton and Dole's proposed defense budgets for the next five years is what they would spend on missile defense systems.
But in other published head-to-head candidate statements on national security issues, BMD figured more prominently:
The primary legislative vehicle Dole used to inject this issue into the campaign was the Defend America Act.
Congressional Budget Office - Potential Costs of Operating and Supporting the defenses included in the Defend America Act of 1996 (S. 1635) July 26, 1996
... the "doves"were wrong all along in the Cold War ... The doves opposed SDI and supported the nuclear freeze and other arms control measures, arguing that weapons, not ideology and intentions, posed the threat to the United States.... effective ballistic missile defenses would do more to enhance American and allied security by providing real protection against limited and accidental strikes than would nonproliferation policies, which rely on the goodwill and cooperation of others to halt the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction to rogue states."
In the early months of the campaign, Dole was mentioning the Star Wars issue frequently.
In a clear election-year challenge, Dole, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, framed the bill as a sharp contrast between his national security views and Clinton's. "Right now the United States has no defense -- and I repeat, no defense -- against ballistic missiles," Dole said. "And if it's left up to the Clinton administration, it will stay that way."
My policy toward Russia will employ effective measures to defend against weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.While the threat of immediate nuclear holocaust has receded, the risk of accidental launch has increased. This makes missile defense more feasible and more necessary. Yet President Clinton is unwilling to have the United States defend itself against even a single incoming nuclear missile.
I will end the misguided efforts to include theater missile defenses under the ABM treaty--no more `dumbing down' our missile defenses and dulling our technological edge. The Clinton Administration views the ABM treaty as the cornerstone of its arms control policy. I view it as an historical relic that does not reflect the new realities of proliferation, and seeks instead to preserve the Cold War balance of nuclear terror.
... one thing will be certain in my administration: the American people will no longer be left vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. When I am President, we will deploy an effective national missile defense. We can afford it. We can do it. We should begin now.
It's time for the U.S. to work with Japan, and to work with South Korea, as well as other Asian allies on the development, testing, and deployment of ballistic missile defenses -- a "Pacific Democracy Defense Program." Our three countries have territory or military forces under direct threat of missile attack today. Our three countries have the resources and experience to work on missile defense programs today. And with American leadership, our three countries can have the political will and technological means to defend our territory and our people tomorrow.Japan and Korea face a clear and present danger from ballistic missiles, and should be our top priority under the Pacific Democracy Defense Program. It is time to move past paper studies to deployment decisions. It is time to announce our willingness to license exports of systems such as THAAD -- Theater High Altitude Air Defense -- and in the interim make operational prototypes available to our allies. It is time to invite interested friends to send military personnel to train with U.S. army units already formed for THAAD launch. Finally, I call upon President Clinton to implement the law and move ahead with Navy "Upper" and "Lower Tier" missile defenses so that we can always be in the right place at the right time. With American leadership and American know-how, we can create Pacific Democracy Defense network that provides protection for people and territory from the Aleutians to Australia.
I believe President Clinton has failed to adequately provide for our defense, and for whatever reason this neglect it is irresponsible.
....
He believes that defending our people and our territory from missile attack is unnecessary; I do not. And on my first day in office, I will put America on a course that will end our vulnerability to missile attack and rebuild our armed forces.
I will put America on a course that will end our vulnerability to missile attack.
We will expand our use of military technologies, including reconnaissance and satellites and aerial surveillance and listening posts, to track drug movements toward our borders, and we will expand our use of air capabilities to better know how and where drug shipments are being flown into the United States.
I will treat illegal drugs for what they really are: The moral equivalent of terrorism. That's what drugs are! That's what they do to your children, that's what they do to your grandchildren -- and it's time it stopped. There is nothing more precious than the life of the child. But if you had an incoming missile into this area we couldn't defend against that either
...
We have more teenagers using drugs, we have more liberal judges who turn their back on evidence involving drugs from time to time. We are defenseless against incoming ballistic missiles.
[Clinton] ... would be a bridge to the future of higher taxes, more teenagers using drugs, a government-run health care system, more liberal judges, America defenseless against incoming ballistic missiles, and an economy producing too few jobs and on and on with more government -- more government in our lives every day and every day and every day.We are going to be a bridge to lower taxes, to fewer teenagers using drugs, an America that can defend itself.
But at other times ballistic missile defense seems to slip in and out of focus in the Dole campaign.
Bob Dole on Thursday accused President Clinton of engaging in "a series of photo opportunities, treaty signings, staged handshakes and even military theatrics" to camouflage a "rudderless and illusory" foreign policy record. The GOP presidential nominee charged that after nearly four years with Clinton at the helm, "our friends no longer respect us and our enemies no longer fear us."
There are a variety of online resources on the Republican campaign.
... we also have to be prepared to defend ourselves in the extremely unlikely event that these preventive measures fail. That's why we're spending $3 billion a year on a strong, sensible, national missile defense program based on real threats and pragmatic responses. Our first priority is to defend against existing or near-term threats, like short- and medium-range missile attacks on our troops in the field or our allies. And we are, with upgraded patriot missiles, the Navy Lower and Upper Tier and the Army THAAD.The possibility of a long-range missile attack on American soil by a rogue state is more than a decade away. To prevent it, we are committed to developing by the year 2000 and defensive system that could be deployed by 2003, well before the threat becomes real.
I know that there are those who disagree with this policy. They have a plan that Congress will take up this week that would force us to choose now a costly missile defense system that could be obsolete tomorrow. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this cost will be between $30 and $60 billion.
Those who want us to deploy this system before we know the details and the dimensions of the threat we face I believe are wrong. I think we should not leap before we look. I believe this plan is misguided. It would waste money. It would weaken our defenses by taking money away from things we know we need right now. It would violate the arms control agreements that we have made and these agreements make us more secure. That is the wrong way to defend America. (Applause.)
The right way to defend America includes eliminating weapons of mass destruction, stopping this dread, and building a smart missile defense system. It also includes continuing the fight against the increasingly interconnected forces of destruction like terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking.
We have made investments, new investments, in our most important defense asset -- our magnificent men and women in uniform. By the year 2000, we also will have increased funding to modernize our weapons systems by 40%. These commitments will make sure that our military remains the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the entire world. We are developing a sensible nation missile defense, but we must not -- not now, not by the year 2000 -- squander $60 billion on an unproved, ineffective Star Wars program that could be obsolete tomorrow.