Anti-missile system in Poland? (Is it good for Poland?)

US defense experts suggest that an interceptor missile base be stationed on Polish soil. Poland has yet to say yes.

Polish Premier Jaroslaw Kaczynski says that if Warsaw agrees to a anti-missile shield on Polish soil, it should also serve as a security blanket for us as well. Premier Kaczynski thinks that Russia doesn’t see it as a threat for its own security, but that the shield would place Poland in a higher position in Europe.

“It is obviously the only reasonable explanation why Russia objects to the idea. It’s not being aimed at them. The Anti- Missile Shield is for rockets coming from the Middle East.”

Reports suggest that Washington is preparing a concrete proposal to start exploratory talks with Warsaw soon. Poland is the strongest ally of US foreign policy in Europe.

But Polish lawmakers argue that this doesn’t mean that Warsaw should surrender its sovereignty to the US. Polish Defense officials have gone on record saying that Washington would have to give Warsaw security guarantees before stationing anything foreign on Polish soil.

International defense expert Bartlomiej Weglarczyk from Gazeta Wyborcza says that Poland would have the upper hand if it would say yes to the US scheme

“This shield is a long range missile shield. It has nothing to do with Poland; it ‘s not to defend Poland so we should get something to defend ourselves. The Polish military has a huge shortage of short-range missile defense systems. Poland is the best location for the missile shield, so we can get a huge prize for our agreement to place the base in Poland.”

But Roman Kuzniar from the Strategic Defense Studies at Warsaw University disagrees with popular opinion. He thinks it would place Poland in danger of a possible terrorist attack.

“Obviously I am against it. We don’t need it. Nobody needs it. It is not a threat driven project. First it is going to endanger our security situation. It is going to put us at risk from the security point of view. Why because this American base can be come in the time of crisis an object of a hostile attack. There is no prize for the exchange of your security. What can we get in exchange visas?”

The US which already has an early warning system stationed in California and Alaska wants to extend its defense reach to Europe by 2011.

No,

Actually your Schroeder/Fischer team while bad mouthing missile defense in your media ensured that Germany too be covered. In fact, while your government did nothing to squench rumors and even propoganda by those who oppose it, i.e. Russia. So we heard about how the US is “destabilizing the world, starting a new arms race.....” and your government even capitalized on this ferver with Schroeder and Fischer joining in on this fray. No rejection or comment (Why take the egg in the face) by your government although they ensured through NATO that they be protected and signed in on numerous contracts and became a minority member of MEADS, bought Patriot PAC3 and SM3; all systems primarily used for missile defense. The Interceptors in Poland will cover more than Poland, they will protect the entire theater unlike a Patriot PAC3 which defends a very small area, the later of which you have hundreds of and will replace with MEADS when this system comes on line. But no worries, the US “destabiliziert die Welt” while you’re living in perfect harmony and peace with your neighbors and see no threats, ask Schroeder whom you defended. You just "don't get it."

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/archiv/2002/2002/en_20020506_meads_e.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/01/raytheons-standard-missile-naval-defense-family-updated/index.php

http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/patriot-pac3-abm.htm

Yes, you're right, Iran, and Syria, and Libya in the future possibly are real threats and a missile defense sheild takes time to build. Good thing someone was thinking ahead and willing to be called a "Hegomoniale Weltmacht, Weltpolizei, Imperialistische-oelmacht or whatever other concoctions your "Volk" has thought up since then and faulted the US for.

Another fault we will gladly take credit for- Nuclear deternce - we were told it can never work and will start a war.

Schroeder and Fischer - this era that helped run Germany into the ground economically also managed to break trust. We are strategic allies, and we will work together, but the trust is not there like it use to be. The era “Realpolitik” is over.

Bottom line- In the Cold War, “your” ass was on the line. Your politicians didn’t play games. They knew they had to have the Pershing's and GLCMs ets and they were willing to stand out there and have eggs through at them. The Cold War is over, the perceived threat to most in the German Volk is gone. It’s not Germany that is in the lead, dealing with problems such as N. Korea, Iran, or even Libya and former Saddam’s Iraq; it’s the US. Germany has gone from the nation on the forefront as an asset in standing against the Soviet threat to a political liability in some instances when dealing with rouge states and regional problems, although overall the Germans sit in the same boat, often even more at threat than we are (Example: Libya - Germany was of no assistance in this matter and the credit for having Libya open it’s doors to inspectors and abandon it’s WMD program at least for now goes completely to the US and UK, something your media does not write about in their diatribe about imaginary oil pipelines running through Afghanistan)! Germany will be quick to ask for help, such as in the Balkans, and they will expect that the missile defense shield protect them too. They will expect us to evacuate their citizens, as was the case in Africa years ago, but they don’t want to stand in the spot light, and they ultimately do not want to pay the political, economic, and blood toll of being a major player on the world stage dealing with these threats. This task will be left to the US, Great Britain, when it fits into France’s agenda, them too.

There is a reason why the US is repositioning in Europe. Ask yourself why.

“Schroeder and Fischer where reformers”

Reformers change things and attempt to be innovative in problem management the word is not a synonym for a liberal who simply applies the same old socialist ideology. Neither of them offered anything other than the same old answer, more taxes, more government, more laws, rules, bureaucracy, social programs.... There was nothing “reforming” about them.

Take a socialist lawyer with a nice hair due and marry him up to a leftist pacifist (who likes beating on cops however) green “szene macho” who never even finished an abitur nor can hold down a job in an Opel assembly plant or as taxi cab driver and you get the infamous Schroeder/Fischer duo.

In a way it’s funny. Two men who probably would be rejected through proper approval channels to receive a security clearance, guys who would be washed out in military leadership training, one of whom is only qualified in menial labor jobs end up at the helm of the third largest economy and 81 million people; steering this entire nation for 7 years. “Reformers” is a very kind description. A description that overlooks nearly 13% unemployment, practically no growth in an economy, decay of military capabilities, loss of influence within NATO, the Middle East, loss of trust by the US, decrease in real per capita incomes inflation adjusted, increase in inflation, decrease in R&D spending as part of GDP. I guess they did change a lot, so maybe they are “reformers” after all, it just depends how one sees it!

There is a reason why the US is repositioning in Europe. Ask yourself why.

A provocative question: So what?

Politicians come and go. The current US-policy is not fixed forever. Do you really think that a fading president (this is no personal offense of GWB - he simply suffers from the inevitable loss of importance in the last third of his reign like every US-president) is able to fix the policy of his country irreversible?

There are many unknown parameters in this game. Are Poland, Romania and the Czech republic really politically stable countries if we concern US troop and millitary deployments (maybe you have heard about the widespread emotional component in the political life in eastern Europe)? Some of those countries being at the first look quite friendly could turn into bitter enemies within a few hours. The people and the political leadership there are far away from full-grown democratic and stable traditions. Just take a look at those funny twins in Poland, to Hungary or to Romania. It is not funny to invest billions and bazillions just for being kicked out of the "host"-country after 2 or 3 years. The "boiling blood" of some idiots in eastern Europe could turn into a desaster for the US.

"Old" Europe is in economic recovery in the moment and political things are quite stable. Even under clowns like Schroeder or Fischer nobody ever interdicted the use of the German US-bases i.e.. Today America is dealing with a pro-US gouvernment under Merkel again and (please pray with me that it will come true) the next gouvernment might be even more pro-US if a CDU-FDP coalition would come into power.

There are not so many nations that are suitable to be among America's important partners in this world. Since eastern Europe contries are in sharp decline (much sharper than western Europe) due to demographic factors (they loose people though a failure in reproduction AND through immigration to western Europe), their importance will remain low compared to old Europe. Old Europe will loose some of its importance too, but a certain level will remain.

Last but not least he most important points: How will the next president react on GWB's rocket deployment? How will the next president react on GWB's Iraq engagement? How will the next president react on GWB's Iran engagement?

Therefore you should understand that I am not too impressed about the blahblah of some contemporary US politicians. The rocket defense in eastern Europe is a reasonable thing to do although I am not convinced that this is solving all of our problems. There are many ways to bring warheads into the civilized world. America is obviously not able to solve the problems in the ME only millitarily. We also need a successfull political initiative. It is contraproductive to let those Arabs and Iranians loose their faces all the time. Peace and prosperity are only possible if there is some cooperation from their side. In the moment they only fight against you (and us). Therefore we need some change. If this is not possible, America is going to be bound for the next 100 years in the desert. Then you have no chance to reposition your troops in Europe since they will be all deployed in Iraq. :)

To initiate a new global policy the next American president needs powerful partners and not just young nations that are in their first developing phase (I do not say this to offend anybody but there are indeed differences). He (or even she - if it should be unavoidable) needs strength. In regard to Iran or Syria i.e. such only can be provided by France, Italy and Germany since those countries are still the most important partners of the Mullahs and of Assad.

You see - the trust/distrust into my country of the current US-administation is just a passing wind. We have to wait for the next elections (in the US and in Germany) to see into which direction our relationsship will go.

The political changes that led some of those in power to take the action they did in 2002/03 will persist in the future. Everyone knows that. The political reality has changed.

Presidents don’t man BRAC: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/ It’s Congressionally controlled. It was the change in the German political landscape that led for a certain party and individuals to capitalize on the Iraq campaign at the expense of the US. The actions in 2002/03 led to institutional decisions and set wheels in motion that won’t stop even with Merkel in office today or when Bush leaves.

Sometimes, when certain things get set in motion, people don’t really understand until a long time later. Many of these decisions have secondary and tertiary effects.

http://www.rfct.1ad.army.mil/home.htm

My former brigade is coming to Ft Bliss TX; good thing in my opinion.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6247076

http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=16858

The US and Germany share close ties for many reasons and will continue to do so. We have common interests in all aspects from security, to trade, resources, regional stability, and perceived threats. Your BND and our CIA work well together as do the BW and DoD. We share intelligence, are major trading partners, many in the US are of German heritage (Like me). However, none of this changes the reality that we can’t trust the Germans to take the heat politically even if we are taking action that serves our collective interests. What’s after Merkel? No one knows, and it could be another Schroeder.

The US will remain close to Germany. Even when Germany was at its peak effort in sabotaging US political efforts for a second resolution, paid off the Turks etc etc etc, the US never really escalated the situation. Rumsfeld said things that hurt your feelings, but on the US side no action that threatened NATO or seriously damaged US/German cooperation was taken. The problem with the relationship as it is, lies in that a leading nation such as the US can not default on it’s commitments but the followers can choose to not even participate, they can choose what and how much they help. If the US had not followed through and supported the German/UK initiative in the Balkans, NATO would have fallen apart. On the other hand, if the Germans seven years later say they won’t be involved in any combat missions in Afghanistan, excuse themselves from Iraq by claiming it’s about oil, and pretend Libya doesn’t exist; well, NATO is still around isn’t it? The US is not in a position where they can choose their battles.

Knowing the changes in this political reality for Germany we have to make changes. The best way to do this is not much unlike a portfolio for investment. You diversify, or in our case spread the risk over more countries in Europe, with an emphasis placed on those we think have a greater probability of being reliable when placed under stress. Poland politically perceives the Russians very differently than Germany, and they also have a national and even more of a cultural identity. In Romania you’re dealing with a nation that being right next to a crises area and closer to the Middle East also has a slightly different perception of threat and defense issues. We’re not leaving Europe, we’re just divesting some from Germany. We are actually building up in Italy and in the UK as well. The end state will still have US troops in Germany and nothing will change on the US/German relations other than the US will be in a position where if games are played in the future we are not at risk.

Let me give you the perfect example (The games)- US violation of Austrian airspace

It is not unusual that when planes are doing air to air refueling they will violate certain airspace for safety reasons. Air to air refueling even today is not a joke and things go wrong. And believe it or not, mistakes are also made. I know I have screwed up several filings because I got the call when I forgot to close it out after I landed (Oooops). However, the most likely scenario is that the Austrian government gave approval for this flight and that when some provincial politician made it into a big stink they chose to stand their mute (No comment). During the build up to the war some no name Austrian decided his claim to fame was going to be to make a scandal. What better target than the US (Someone other than an Austrian) and catering to Austrian national sovereignty and attacking something that is perceived negatively by the people living there?

http://www.airpower.at/news02/1023_f-117a/IMG_0903.jpg

So, let’s think about this. F117s that flew at night in every single mission they ever flew (stealth doesn’t work to well when you can “SEE” the plane), not operating in full stealth (They actually intentionally create a radar signature for collision avoidance and counter intelligence reasons), are flown in a way that is incorrect if you want to ride in someone’s radar shadow. This no-name politician (I’m sure he’s famous today but I don’t care to know his name) decides to make this into a huge deal claiming that the US is secretly shuttling airplanes over Austrian airspace, because after all that’s so important to us (I flew over France on my way to Iraq – we don’t need their airspace). One thing is for sure, we weren’t trying to “sneak” something through Austria.

Total and complete garbage. The newspapers ran with it for days, even weeks. Chat rooms were filled with theories, conspiracies; unbelievable shock that the hegemony, imperialist, oil empire USA would violate their sovereign air space. Bush was at fault! And the glorious Austrian air force flying Saab Draken (trash) intercepted these F117s! Wow, they saw a stealth plane in daylight and saw them on radar even though the F117 didn’t do anything to avoid detection! Can you imagine that? The F117 wasn’t hiding and the Austrians saw him anyway! What glorious success!

This issue is by itself unimportant. What matters is the concept that political games are often played. Germany up to the Iraq war had several such episodes where games were played, as you’re well aware of, Bad Aibling. Without going into the details of all those incidents, they show a pattern and a change in political operating landscape. For the US, specifically the DoD, Germany is a friend and ally, but someone may decide to play games and no one will stick their neck out like in the Cold War.

We have to manage risk; there are several ways to do that. However, the single most important factor is spreading that risk out over several allied nations.

More tomorrow -

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.