The Blog

Cruz Continues Push to Reverse Obama's 'Disastrous Missile Defense Policies'

1:26 PM, Mar 19, 2014 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

In a statement released today, Senator Ted Cruz said a new government report detailing further delays and cost overruns for U.S. missile defense programs in Europe should serve as a "wake-up call that President Obama’s policies on both Russia and missile defense have collapsed and should be immediately reversed." The Texas Republican derided the Obama administration's decisions to cancel parts of the missile defense program, "beginning with the decision to cancel plans for a ballistic missile defense system in Central Europe, announced on the 70thanniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 2009." In March of 2013, the Obama administration canceled another part of the missile defense program that Russia opposed. 

On Wednesday, Cruz called on the administration to take the following actions:

·                     The President should begin the process of withdrawing from New START according to the provision of Article XIV(3) of the Treaty, which declares “Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests;”

·                     The Secretary of Defense should engage in a full re-assessment of our missile defense posture in Europe with the purpose of restoring or expanding the installations cancelled in 2009; and

·                     The Secretary of Defense should, in conjunction with this work, engage in a thorough review of the delays and costs over-runs of the existing missile defense programs for Europe with the goal of accelerating their scheduled implementation.

As Steve Hayes reports in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought attention to major foreign policy disagreements between Cruz and another Tea Party favorite, Kentucky senator Rand Paul: 

I reminded Cruz that Paul has already accused him of mischaracterizing those views, an implied charge of dishonesty. “What I have stated is my views,” Cruz says; 

I think it would be a wonderful outcome if every Republican across the spectrum followed the model of Ronald Reagan and spoke with a clarion clarity for freedom and against oppression—spoke out against Russian aggression before they march into Ukraine, spoke out against Venezuelan aggression as Maduro murders protesters fighting for freedom, spoke out and called for the freedom of Leopoldo López, the opposition leader wrongfully imprisoned because Maduro is afraid of the desire for freedom of his citizens, and stood resolutely for vigorous sanctions against Iran, for using every tool necessary, including if necessary overwhelming military force, to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. That is a Reaganesque foreign policy, and nothing would make me happier than seeing every Republican in the United States Senate embrace that foreign policy.

Cruz’s critique is all substance. And he doesn’t mention Paul by name. But there’s no question that Paul is the target of his comments.

On Iran, Paul has supported some sanctions but opposed the recent bipartisan effort to reinstate sanctions automatically if Iran violates the terms of the Geneva agreement. Paul was one of only two Republicans to stand with the Obama White House on the issue. On Venezuela, Paul has been quiet. And just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Paul cautioned against warning Vladimir Putin about the consequences of aggression. Some Republicans, he complained, are “stuck in the Cold War era” and want to “tweak Russia all the time.” Paul acknowledged that relations with Russia would sometimes be adversarial, but he called confrontational talk misguided and urged a more “respectful” approach to Putin.

You can read the rest of Hayes's article here.

And you can read Cruz's full statement on missile defense here:

With a few strokes of his pen, Vladimir Putin has in recent days both created the Republic of Crimea and annexed that new entity into the Russian Federation, thereby violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine.  To hear Putin tell it in his address to the Duma, this action is not only perfectly legal, it also rights a historical wrong in which Russia was “robbed” of its rightful claim to the Crimean peninsula in 1954.

 

President Obama has disputed the legality of these actions, observing that “President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anyone.” The reality, however, is that Putin is not concerned with international law or historical justice.  His sole focus is on correcting what he considers to be the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century” by reassembling the Soviet Union.   Ukraine is only a step in this process.  That is the real challenge the United States has to face, which we cannot do when we are agonizing over what our respective legal teams think.

 

There is an historical model we can consult for guidance in this crisis, as deterring Soviet aggression without engaging in military conflict was exactly what President Ronald Reagan had in mind when he proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative thirty-one years ago next Sunday. 

 

The genius of SDI was that it did not recklessly attack the Soviets but rather neutralized their threat through our technological advantage.  Derided as a “Star Wars” style fantasy that was impossible to realize, President Reagan’s vision was a major component in the effort that brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot, as no one ever started a war with a weapon called missile defense.

 

The Obama administration has unfortunately shown little enthusiasm for missile defense, beginning with the decision to cancel plans for a ballistic missile defense system in Central Europe, announced on the 70thanniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 2009.  This pattern continued with the arbitrary and unnecessary concessions made to the Russians limiting our global deployment of missile defense in the New START that was implemented in 2011 and remains in force until 2021. 

Most recently, on March 14th the Government Accountability Office released a report titled “Regional Missile Defense: DOD’s Report Provided Limited Information; Assessment of Acquisition Risks is Optimistic.” It provides the depressing assessment that what missile defense programs we still have planned in Europe are going to be delayed to the tune of years because of technological glitches and cost overruns—a failure that would not have been tolerated if missile defense was a priority for the Commander in Chief.

This report could not have come at a more inopportune time, but perhaps it can serve as a wake-up call that President Obama’s policies on both Russia and missile defense have collapsed and should be immediately reversed through the following actions:

 

·                     The President should begin the process of withdrawing from New START according to the provision of Article XIV(3) of the Treaty, which declares “Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests;”

·                     The Secretary of Defense should engage in a full re-assessment of our missile defense posture in Europe with the purpose of restoring or expanding the installations cancelled in 2009; and

·                     The Secretary of Defense should, in conjunction with this work, engage in a thorough review of the delays and costs over-runs of the existing missile defense programs for Europe with the goal of accelerating their scheduled implementation.

 

These simple steps would send a clear and unequivocal signal to Vladimir Putin that the United States is unafraid to stand with our allies for our own national security interests. 

 

Today his sights are set on Ukraine, but if he continues undeterred tomorrow it could be Estonia, Latvia, Moldova, Romania, the Czech Republic, or Poland.  Meeting his challenge now with strength, not appeasement, would be the best way to ensure that this does not happen, and that we do not squander our hard-won Cold War victory over the Soviets. 

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 18 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers