General Warns Obama On Missile Defense

Head Of Missile Defense Agency Says U.S. Would Be "Severely Hurt" If Plan Is Abandoned; Russia Rejects More U.S. Proposals

(CBS/AP)  The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told a group of reporters that he is awaiting word from Obama's transition team on their interest in receiving briefings.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin has rejected a second set of U.S. proposals offered to assuage increasingly strident Russian criticism of plans for an American missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, news agencies reported Wednesday.

During the campaign, Obama was not explicit about his intentions with regard to missile defense. The program has tended to draw less support from Democrats over the years, particularly during the Reagan presidency when it was seen as a "Star Wars" effort to erect an impenetrable shield against nuclear missile attack from the Soviet Union. More recently the project has been scaled back, although it has again created an East-West divide by stirring Russian opposition to the proposed European link.

Obama has said it would be prudent to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe," in light of what he called active efforts by Iran to develop ballistic missiles as well as nuclear weapons.

Iran's defense minister announced the country has successfully test-fired a new, more accurate generation of its longest-range surface-to-surface missile. Iranian television showed the missile being fired Wednesday from a launching pad in the desert.

But Obama expressed some skepticism about the technical capability of U.S. missile defenses. He said that if elected his administration would work with NATO allies to develop anti-missile technologies.

Obering, who is leaving his post next week after more than four years in charge, said in the interview that his office has pulled together information for a presentation to the Obama team, if asked.

"What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program," he said. "They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000. Our primary objective is going to be just, frankly, educating them on what we have accomplished, what we have been able to do and why we have confidence in what we are doing."

The Bush administration says the system would protect Europe against potential future attacks by Iranian long-range missiles. Moscow has angrily dismissed those assertions, saying the system could eliminate Russia's nuclear deterrent or spy on its military installations.

In a major speech just hours after Obama won the U.S. presidential vote, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pledged to base short-range Iskander missiles in the Baltic Sea region of Kaliningrad on the border with Poland if the U.S. goes forward with its plans.

The Bush administration later sent Moscow a new set of proposals, including suggestions about allowing Russian observers at the planned U.S. sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to John Rood, the U.S. acting undersecretary of state for arms control.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said over the weekend the latest U.S. proposals were insufficient. On Wednesday, an unidentified Kremlin official told Russian news agencies that Moscow was prepared to work with Washington on questions of European security but accused the Bush administration of trying to limit the incoming Obama administration's choices on the issue.

The Kremlin did not comment on the report, but Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell did.

"I hope this unnamed Kremlin official does not express his government's true wishes because we still very much wish to partner with Russia to combat the growing ballistic missile threat emanating from Iran," he said.

"They are clearly determined to develop a weapon capable of reaching Europe, and for that matter Russia, so it continues to be in our mutual interest to work together on this issue."

Meanwhile, Obering said Wednesday that Russia has not indicated what part of the new U.S. proposals it objects to.

"We have laid out very common sense approaches here. I think it is time that we ask the Russians to justify why they are taking a stance that internationally is so unreasonable."

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow said the U.S. envoy William Burns met with Lavrov and Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko on Wednesday to discuss missile defense talks taking place next month. No further details were released.

An American official said separately the U.S. and Russia will begin talks Thursday in Geneva on finding a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires at the end of next year. The 1991 START treaty significantly cut U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

The official spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Sack this general, immediately!! Send him out to pasture with all those other Raytheon patriots. Eisenhower tried to warn us about these people - it''s about time we listened. They''ve sucked up enough of our tax money over the years - it''s time to stop it.

[perk235]

Quote from article: What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated ... We have come a hell of a long way since 2000.
Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency
--------
This is a great way to start a conversation. Makes you wonder what he really wants.

[american56]

This general needs to ignored, he wants to continue the stupidity of the cold war, which did nothing but spend money. It seems like Bush and the military industrial complex can''t stop spending.

Let me point out how stupid this is, Bush and the general claim its to protect Europe from Iran, why is it the US''s job to protect Europe from Iran, wouldn''t NATO or the European countries be more worried? Wouldn''t they put in their own protection system if they were worried? And finally, wouldn''t an attack by Iran on Europe, which makes no sense at all, cause Europe to not only stand up and defend themselves, but to wipe Iran off the face of the map?

[andor3]

true-- cutting the missile defense system would cause damage-- the contractors making millions in profits would have to find real projects to do instead. And the generals and military officials in the Pentagon will no longer retire into cushy "consultant" jobs with the companies they helped get contracts.

[babooph]

I thought only assetes had to be defended-looks like he wants to defend deficits?

[nursemark-2009]

When not scrape the missles, and sign a pact with Israel, for defense. Any nuclear attack on any NATO country or Israel, would be consider the same as a full attack on the US requireing a full return strike by the US on that country. So if Iran were to try and nuc Israel or Europe it would be left as a smoking hole in the ground. They should be made to understand this.

[hbevis]

Sack this general, immediately!! Send him out to pasture with all those other Raytheon patriots. Eisenhower tried to warn us about these people - it''''s about time we listened. They''''ve sucked up enough of our tax money over the years - it''''s time to stop it.

Posted by hadenough43 at 01:10 AM : Nov 13, 2008

Eisenhower was warning us about people like obama...

[rf35]

The real "dated" thing here is the idea of a kinetic defense system against medium to long range missiles. Directed energy technology is mature enough to do the job. It''s more accurate and versatile. More expensive to produce, but that is offset by lower upkeep costs and the fact that you don%u2019t have to %u201Creload%u201D after a test. Fewer personnel required to operate and maintain the systems and the option of centralized control (for the ground-based variety, at least) make this a more appealing technology than anti-missile missiles.

On the other hand, I agree with some of the other comments%u2026let Europe worry about Europe. If Iran were to attack an EU or NATO country, the response from the rest of the European allies would be swift and decisive. Why antagonize Russia for no good reason? There is just not enough to be gained.

[iss2010]

Every system short of the unification of all of the people''s of the world, has been tried, repeatedly tried and been found wanting.

Whatever is conduciove to world peace is a good thing, while whatever serves to segregate the nations and introduce hostility between them is detrimental to our planet''s interests. That''s because we are essentially one family of man and we were created to live together peacefully side by side, as much as we might think and do otherwise. To live in a constant atmosphere of hatred and hostility is antagonistic to our true natures.

The right way forward then is to endeavor at all times to foster trust and goodwill among the peoples of the world, and we can only achieve this in practice if we bury the hatchets and turn our "swords into plowshares."

If we see a way to achieve peace without the need to the create and/or deplo yet more arms, we must, if we are thinking responsibly, do everything in our power to embrace it.

Nevertheless this effort should be tempered with wisdom and common sense. It must be a multilateral effort, and any single nation that violates its proviions by attacking another should be dealt with mercilessly through all the other nations acting in concert and with one accord.

This might seem hard to achieve in practice, but if the international will and resolve is strong enough, it can be done.

[wardoglrs]

Like Tax payers are slaves for the Elite machine!!!

[ramos937]

The Bush administration says the system would protect Europe against potential future attacks by Iranian long-range missiles.
--------------------------------------

The General is engaging in diplomatic areas he is not qualified for.

As the above states, the purpose of the system is to defend Europe. If there is such a need, why does not Europe install such a system itself? Why depend on us?

[closethippy1]

The way Obama has been going so far I wouldn''t be surprised if he goes along with the missile system. There''s some kind of virus that presidential candidates get in their brains after winning the White House and makes zombies out of them when it comes to the freaking "national security".
I''m afraid is going to be another generation before we can elect a president with enough balls to look at the Pentagon straight in the eyes and tell them off just like President Eisenhower did back in the 50''s.

[spinproof]

The U.S. needs to come back to reality and do things based on our ability to pay for them, if the U.S. did do things based on our ability to pay for them we would have left Iraq a long time ago, I have absolutely no idea what type of creative accounting methods the Bush administration is engaged in, when you all find out let me in on it.

[cbs_oliver]

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III needs to be removed.

There seem to be quite a number of officers in the Air Force who are politically aligned and not fully loyal to their oath to protect and defend the constitution.

They should be retired before they get really turned about and seek to overthrow the government.

[trishab56]

The way Obama has been going so far I wouldn''''t be surprised if he goes along with the missile system. There''''s some kind of virus that presidential candidates get in their brains after winning the White House and makes zombies out of them when it comes to the freaking "national security".
I''''m afraid is going to be another generation before we can elect a president with enough balls to look at the Pentagon straight in the eyes and tell them off just like President Eisenhower did back in the 50''''s.
---------------------------------------
Posted by closethippy1 at 03:58 AM : Nov 13, 2008

-Obama needs to stop the madness of some war nuts in the Pentagone. Obama promised changes and he will as much as possible. America is expecting him to go ahead wiht his planned reduction of tensions between Russia and the USA over the missile shield system that showed useless by many military experts.

-Obama needs to listen to some neutral military experts in civil life not only Peanut-gone. Obama needs to negotiate and insist on Europeans to defend themselves if they agree on necessity of such defense.

[violist47]

The chances of Iran''s launching missiles against Europe are teeny. The chances of Iran''s launching missiles against Israel are somewhat larger. No one in Europe except some of the Poles wants Star Wars. And even the Poles don''t want Russia putting their own system into Kaliningrad. Israel has its own very capable defense systems. So let''s forget about Star Wars, for goodness'' sake. Let''s give peace a chance!

[evian_ycnan]

Iran Tests Missile Able To Reach Europe
Long-Range Weapon Has 1,200-Mile Range; Iran Says Test Successful


From the northern most reaches of Iran, 1,200 miles will JUST barely cross the Black Sea and reach Romania.

Poland is not the optimal location to protect Europe. The best place is from a ship in the Black Sea, the same way a ship in the Sea of Japan was the best way to defend against North Korea.

The problem with "military advisors" is they always suggest a military solution.

[evian_ycnan]

Given the strength of the Evangelical movement at the Air Force Academy during the 1980s and 90s, the Air Force is more likely to be filled with Jihadists.

[formrusmcsgt]

I think it is time that we ask the Russians to justify why they are taking a stance that internationally is so unreasonable." - Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III
-----
Where is the international condemnation of Russia''s stance if it is so "internationally unreasonable"?

[kevboom]

Well of course the head of the Pentagon''s missile defense projects is positioning for his funding. But the fact of the matter is, the United States should be taking care of its own economic well-being at home instead of spending billions to defend Europe with missile shields. Allies, yes, but allies who can well afford to build their own missile defense shield. Can we help them do it, sure, but should we have to pay for it, no. Europe is a strong economic competitor pummeling the dollar, and every billion we take away from our own national coffers to spend on their well being only furthers the downturn in our economic well being. Enough is enough. Tell the Pentagon to suck it up and tighten their budget belt like everyone else in this country. Europe can well afford to buy its own ridiculous missile shield and take the heat from Russia instead of the U.S.

[longtree-2009]

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, credibility is suspect because he stands to benefit from the missile program. If Poland or the Czech want to develop a missile shield, program, it is their right as independent nation states. Would be good to hear others weigh in on the issue besides this general.

[ajaxtheleast]

And what about the REAL effectiveness of
these Poland-launched missiles as to
protecting Poland?

Dont forget these sites are only a stone''s
throw away from Russia,,,
and prior to any Bush imaginary Russian,
forget what he says about Iran, "Russian"
nuke attack these sites would be history
compliments of a few Russian jet-launched
missiles,,,

A once-fired jet missile cant be
defended against and f-16''s would have to
fly farther to the area than the
Russian jets.

But what these poland-launched missiles
might,,"might" be better at is rocketing
up from behind, being faster, and hitting
a slower, lumbering, yet-to-gain-speed
Russian OUTGOING ICBM,,,headed for the U.S..

This way the Poland-launched missile could
avoid the difficulty, if not improbability,
of an American-based missile trying to hit
an incoming ICBM with a speed factor of the
combined incoming ICBM and the intercepting
missile possibly nearing
two-thousand miles an hour.

And THIS is what Russia is refering to
in saying that Bush is breaking it''s
Nuclear Deterent Capabilities.

Has nothing to do with protecting Poland.

So are going to have Obama slopping up
this garbage of Bush''s generals or are
we not only going to have an intellect
as a president but a worldly intellect
able to observing from other''s points
of view as well?

[evian_ycnan]

The NMD is a farce. It is Air Farce. The hit a bullet with a bullet works best when the trajectory is nearly head-on. A missile defense system in Poland leaves Spain, France, Greece, (obviously Turkey), an most of Italy undefended.

It is an out-and-out lie to use Iran, which hasn''t yet developed a missile that can cross the Black Sea as the impetus to rapidly deploy a system to Poland.

This is 1963 all over again, with Poland playing the part of Cuba.

Wake up `Merica before the military coup of a lifetime happens. Disband much of the US military and its industrial partners while YOU CAN.

[evian_ycnan]

Iran Tests Missile Able To Reach Europe
Long-Range Weapon Has 1,200-Mile Range; Iran Says Test Successful

Countries at the 1,200-mile range from Iran are the
Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, and Greece.

I wouldn`t want to sacrifice any of them, but then Iran has never intimated and hostility toward any of them. In fact, many have large Muslim communities.

Who is the General fooling?

Do you want to know why the Republicans failed miserably in the election this time? Because the world is communicating directly to you; all at your fingertips. Irrational fear is no longer and effective weapon.

[petro49l]

Why should America militarize Poland with defensive or offensive missiles? The Russians will react with missiles, rockets, and shells to destroy the base. The United States has no strategic interest in Eastern Europe. This move would antagonize Russia into a war of nuclear exchange.

[daffy64]

Why not just ban nuclear weapons?

[pirmin3]

Cancel the rocket deployment in eastern Europe. Serves absolutely no purpose - except to line the pockets of defense contractors (contributors all).

[irmcvet97]

the world only worries about condemnation by whiny libs on the cbsnews.com blog

Posted by jamesm12341 at 08:03 AM : Nov 13, 2008

It''s always an attack on American''s with you isn''t it? I don''t care what the issue is, this person ALWAYS attacks other American''s. Why? Because the perception is that THEY are not with or do not agree with the "Party". I just wish ONCE they would try being American''s instead of attacking them!

[hairyonetooo]

The general has been prompted by GOP supporters to try to embarrass the new administration even before it takes office. There is only one president, the general if he has complaints or problems needs to carry them to the present president George Bush. Probably he was prompted by Bush to run out giving interviews critical of President-elect Obama''s possible intentions. The general needs to tend to his business which is following orders of the NCA(National Command Authority) and stop grandstanding trying to get his name in the paper!!

[aerodog]

"Obama was not explicit about his intentions. . ." - oh brother, this is just the beginning folks. Put on your helmets and buckle up - we''re in for one helluva ride here.

[hairyonetooo]

Apparently this general doesn''t understand the chain of command. He reports to a 4-star general who reports to the AF chief of Staff, who reports to the Sec. of the AF, who reports to the Sec. of Defense who at this time reports to George W. Bush the current president. If the Current president and Sec of Defense had any balls they would slap him down so fast his head would spin. His actions are like the lowest private deciding to tell the regimental commander, a colonel, how to run the regiment.

He was prompted to do this for political reasons since he is leaving his post and most likely retiring it won''t hurt his pension and fat cat defense contractors/lobbyists will give him a few million to go around for a few years badmouthing Obama!

[trillion1]

Like reagan''s screwy "Star Wars" just another waste of billions of dollars. With our ports and borders wide open the threat isn''t a missle attack.

[biblethumpar]

If The Missile Defence is "Protection for Europe" from Iran, shouldnt the Europpeans be the ones to discuss the issue?
after all, it is "their side of the world"

[promaclaura]

The question is, do we wait until Iran and North Korea do have the capability to fire long range missiles before intalling a missile defense shield? Doesn''t it make sense to set up a system now, after all our military is stationed in Europe and we need Europe as trading partners as well.

Also, these are missile INTERCEPTORS not nukes so what''s the big deal? Russia, go ahead and set up your own system as well. Could it be that Russia doesn''t feel threatened from Iran because they are buddies? The past has shown how eager Russia is to be Iran''s protectors, even with their psycho leaders threatening to flatten Israel. Oh, and let''s not forget Korea or looney Chavez to the south. How do we protect ourselves and our interests against these untrustworthy rogue nations? I know, let''s set up interceptor shields now so that we are ready for anything. Oops, we''re already doing that, to the dismay of libs who would like to leave us vulnerable so they can get "Bush".

[j_flood]

MID --- that''s the problem not the Iranians..........

[incog-nito]

Who is this guy, and what business does he have "warning" the next administration, especially when the only statement Obama has said regarding missile defense, is that he supports it?

Somebody reminds this guy he''s not in charge around here.

[j_flood]

Oops -- MIC --- thats the problem!

[omega40]

Why throw endless money down the hole that is missile defense when we can throw endless money at the failed bankers of wall street? It is time for the leadership of this country to start making the tough decisions. Do we want to prop up Wall street and make sure the investment bankers receive their bonus checks, or do we want to cut back on military spending? The country simply cannot afford to do both.

[grumpas]

Isn''t that the same phony missile system Reagan poured billions into in the 80''s that they never could get to work?????? Just because the Republican''s wanted a new toy to play with?????

[gop_will_win]

Why throw endless money down the hole that is missile defense when we can throw endless money at the failed bankers of wall street?
Posted by omega40
=======================
You are being narrowminded about this. Easily we can do both.

[nothappyatall]

The Bush administration says the system would protect Europe against potential future attacks by Iranian long-range missiles. "

Its not up to *US* to freaking protect Europe!!!!!!!!!!!
Europe is not our responsibility!!!!
Hope this commder moron Bush cartel enable doesn''t let the door hit his azz on the way OUT. This whole scheme should be abandoned in light of the fact Russia is about to restart the f''ing COLD WAR over Bush''s scheme.

[windmaster12]

Lets see:

If the Russians decided they needed a missle defense shield in Cuba mexico or Maybe Venezuela--
How would we be reacting

This is obviously geared towrd''s Russia not Iran
Otherwise we''d post them in Italy or Greece- Perhaps
Kuwait!!!
The Russians feel they are being backed into a corner
And indeed they are!!!
Its Blatantly obvious!!!

[promaclaura]

Isn''''t that the same phony missile system Reagan poured billions into in the 80''''s that they never could get to work?????? Just because the Republican''''s wanted a new toy to play with?????


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by grumpas at 08:57 AM : Nov 13, 2008

Did you see when the Navy shot down the falling satellite in space with "star wars" interceptors? I did, and it was spectacular and I''m very thankful of Reagan''s foresight. Heck, we might even be able to smash incoming asteroids as well. I love it and think it would be stupid to not invest in something so valuable for our safety.

[nothappyatall]

Could it be that Russia doesnt feel threatened from Iran because they are buddies? The past has shown how eager Russia is to be Iran''''s protectors, even with their psycho leaders threatening to flatten Israel."

Russia doesnt feel threatened because they know Iran only spews bullchit about nuking Israel specifically to get a laugh watching us get yanked on a chain like a puppet. All they have to do is make a comment about Israel and sit back and laugh while the Bush cartel and press here go wild for days.
They may be screwy but they aren''t mad, they know if they bombed Israel we would remove Iran off the face of the globe permanently with nukes.

Their statements are nothing more than taunting for laughs to get a reaction, and get a reaction they do- every time, every time we fall for their game like dumb clutz and the Bush cartel uses it to expand their war machine.

[promaclaura]

C''mon people, stop making this about "Bush". It''s our future and our children''s, I for one don''t want to wait until Iran or North Korea does have the missile capability. Let''s stay one step ahead of them. Some people''s premise of not implementing a system is because "Russia" says we shouldn''t. Man, haven''t you people been watching the news. Every time we have tried to place harder sanctions against Iran, Russia and China block it. In the meantime, Russia is supplying Iran with better technology and promoting their nuclear capabilities. Maybe if Russia would join "us" instead of throwing in with Iran we wouldn''t need to do anything.

[easeup-2009]

I''m sure President-elect Obama will rely on his vast military & foreign policy experience to guide us through these troubled times.

[promaclaura]

Could it be that Russia doesnt feel threatened from Iran because they are buddies? The past has shown how eager Russia is to be Iran''''''''s protectors, even with their psycho leaders threatening to flatten Israel."

Russia doesnt feel threatened because they know Iran only spews bullchit about nuking Israel specifically to get a laugh watching us get yanked on a chain like a puppet. All they have to do is make a comment about Israel and sit back and laugh while the Bush cartel and press here go wild for days.
They may be screwy but they aren''''t mad, they know if they bombed Israel we would remove Iran off the face of the globe permanently with nukes.

Their statements are nothing more than taunting for laughs to get a reaction, and get a reaction they do- every time, every time we fall for their game like dumb clutz and the Bush cartel uses it to expand their war machine.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by newster1 at 09:07 AM : Nov 13, 2008

I don''t think they are jokes, nor do I think they are funny. I''ll take them at their word, seeing how they never mentioned it was a joke.

[biblethumpar]

Everyone is missing the point,
We need Iran to launch a newkewlar strike against us so the second coming can become fulfilled.

[biblethumpar]

AAAY MaNNNN, Brothers

[easeup-2009]

Everyone is missing the point,
We need Iran to launch a newkewlar strike against us so the second coming can become fulfilled.

Posted by Biblethumpar at 09:17 AM : Nov 13, 2008

Do you get any bites at all with that troll-bait?