GREAT TRIO FROM FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS

Posted By on January 26th, 2010

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5347/pub_detail.asp
 

Providing for the Common Defense: A Call to Restore Funding to U.S. Missile Defense

The Editors

Editor’s note: The following is the text of a letter sent by the Committee on the Present Danger to President Obama, members of the Senate and members of the House regarding critical changes to America’s missile defense that will likely  threaten American safety and security.
 
January 21, 2010
 
President Barack Obama
 
cc: Members of the United States Senate
cc: Members of the United States House of Representatives
 
Dear Mr. President:
 
We, the undersigned members of the Committee on the Present Danger, write to express our deep concern over the scope and nature of the Obama Administration’s missile defense program. Since taking office, the new Administration has put into place changes to America’s ballistic missile defense policy that we believe will threaten the safety and security of the United States.
 
Since last spring, the White House has cut some $1.4 billion from programs within the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. In doing so, it has terminated a number of promising programs, among them the Airborne Laser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor. All these programs intercepted missiles in early flight and were an important hedge against future offensive missile threats. It has also limited the U.S.-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California to 30 instead of 44, which are currently our only defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
 
It likewise ended a European “third site” of ground-based defenses, including interceptors and radar, in Poland and the Czech Republic. The latter deployment of 10 missiles, contrary to many claims, was designed to shoot down longer range rockets from Iran, including those capable of reaching both central Europe and the continental United States, as a supplement to the U.S.- based systems. Our other theater missile defense systems, such as THAAD, Patriot and the Aegis-based Standard Missile, numbering close to 1,000 interceptors when current acquisition plans reach fruition, were acquired over the past decade and were scheduled to be simultaneously deployed. These systems have not been designed to shoot down longer range rockets, especially those of intercontinental range.
 
The Navy’s Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), however, has that inherent potential, given relatively inexpensive software modifications and other feasible improvements – as was discussed in the Committee’s July 15, 2005 report on Missile Defense for the 21st Century. This fact was demonstrated almost two years ago when, within a few weeks, the then-deployed SM-3 was given the ability to shoot down a dying satellite moving above the Earth’s atmosphere at a higher velocity than an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Thus, the Committee welcomes the Administration’s increased SM-3 funding and urges it to make the needed modifications, including the interlinking of key sensors, to begin giving the SM-3 at least a limited capability against ICBMs within the next three years.
 
The Committee views as shortsighted the current White House plan to stretch out the timeline for deploying advanced sea-based interceptors until the year 2020, some seven years after the previously scheduled European 3rd site, when a limited capability could be deployed by the end of 2012 and then be improved. In addition, air-based defenses using current U.S. aircraft and modified air-to-air missiles have not received the full-up funding that would allow both NATO and the U.S. homeland to be protected, particularly against EMP-type attacks. By deferring a full and more effective defense of the U.S. homeland until that time, we are giving our adversaries a green light to use ballistic missiles for coercion or blackmail.
 
Especially profound is the recent decision to move away from the “system of systems” approach of the past decade, in which multiple, interconnected anti-missile systems would seek to intercept enemy missiles in all phases of flight from the ground, sea and air. Instead, the new plan focuses overwhelmingly on improving one technology, the SM-3 interceptor missile. (The two-stage ground-based interceptor previously scheduled for deployment in Poland by 2013 remains a potential backup but at a very low level of funding.)
 
The adoption of such a policy also assumes that America’s adversaries (such as North Korea and Iran), will not develop long-range rockets until the end of the next decade. Current intelligence, such as the May 2009 USAF report, projects Iran to have an ICBM or intercontinental ballistic missile capability by 2015. In light of the pursuit by Tehran and Pyongyang of nuclear weapons, the additional defense of the U.S. homeland, (as well as our allies and military forces overseas), is imperative.
 
For these reasons, and others, we write to urge you in the strongest terms not only to assure robust funding for early deployment of an advanced SM-3, but also to restore full funding for the previous “systems of systems” approach and to accord this area of U.S. defense policy the highest priority on the national security agenda. Only in that way will the American people be provided the common defense our Constitution demands.
 
Members of the Committee on the Present Danger:
 
Hon. George Shultz, (co-Chairman) former Secretary of State; Hon. R. James Woolsey, (co-Chairman) former Director of Central Intelligence
 
Ilan Berman, Vice President, American Foreign Policy Council; Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs; Hon. Henry Cooper, Director, Strategic Defense Initiative and former Chief U.S. Negotiator, Geneva Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union; Jack David, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Hon. Richard Fairbanks, former Ambassador-at-Large and Special Negotiator for the Middle East Peace Process; Hon. Frank Gaffney, Director, Center for Security Policy; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces; Peter Hannaford, member, CPD board of directors, author; public affairs executive; Peter
Huessy, President, GeoStrategic Analysis; Phyllis Kaminsky, former Press Officer, National Security Council and former Director of Office of Public Liaison, USIA and Voice of America; Hon. Max Kampelman, former Ambassador and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms; former Ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe; John Kester, former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense; Dana M. Marshall, former Senior Advisor for International Economic Affairs to the Vice President; Clifford May, President, Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Hon. Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Attorney General; Chet Nagle, former senior civilian in the Department of Defense’s International Security Affairs department; Norman Podhoretz, author, former Editor, Commentary; Sol W. Sanders, former International Editor, BusinessWeek; Randy Scheunemann; Kenneth Schwartz, board of directors, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Peter Schweizer, author, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Hon. John H. Shenefield, former Associate Attorney General of the United States; Former Chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security; Max Singer, founder and Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute; Jeffrey D. Stein, CEO, Peyton Investments, Inc.; James Strock, former California Secretary for Environmental Protection; Raymond Tanter, President Iran Policy Committee, former staff member National Security Council; William VanCleave, Professor Emeritus, Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University; Member, Department of State International Security Advisory Board and the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Council; Francis Wong, Professor of international relations, political science; attorney; James G. Zumwalt, Former Senior Advisor, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.
 
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
  
 

Exclusive: We Ignore Chávez at our Own Peril

Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?, James Carafano, PhD

Last week was another rough one for the administration, with lots of carping over the pace of getting aid to Haiti. Much of the criticism is over the top. America is actually doing a good job. In fact, it is unlikely Washington could deal as well with a similar tragedy in this country.
 
The speed of aiding Haiti is not Obama’s number one problem in Latin America at the moment. One of the sharpest critics of U.S. disaster relief efforts in Haiti is the President of Venezuela. His problem is not that aid is too slow. His problem is the United States. “The Empire,” in other words America, Hugo Chávez declared, “is taking Haiti over the bodies and tears of its people.” Chávez added, “They [the U.S.] brazenly occupied Haiti without consulting the UN or the OAS [Organization of American States].” There is a temptation to ignore his populist rhetoric, but that would be a mistake. Chávez is dangerous.
 
The threat posed by Chávez is the subject of a recent study by the Heritage Foundation’s senior analyst for Latin America, Ray Walser, titled “State Sponsors of Terrorism: Time to Add Venezuela to the List.” In his study, Walser points out that the U.S. officially designates four countries as state sponsors of terrorism – Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Sudan. A careful review of the facts shows that it is high time to add Venezuela to the list. Far from being merely a populist showman and bully, Hugo Chávez is a reckless leader who collaborates with Colombian narcoterrorists and Islamist terrorists, pals around with brutal Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a virulent anti-Semite, and is guided by a relentless anti-Americanism in everything he does.
 
Ignoring Chávez, which is what the White House is doing now, Walser concludes is just plain dumb.
 
Meanwhile, the White House also had a tough week here at home when Congressional hearings revealed the number and severity of mistakes made that allowed a bomber to get on a Christmas day flight bound for Detroit. As I reported before, not much of the fault for failure rests with the Department of Homeland Security. That did not keep Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano from getting grilled along with the administration’s top law enforcement and intelligence officers. Among the most stunning lapses was that the Attorney General did not consult any other top U.S. officials before turning the suspect over to the courts. Furthermore, months ago, the President took responsibility for interrogations out of the hands of the CIA and put it in the National Security Council and the FBI. In the hearings, it was revealed that that new interrogation regime has not even been set up yet.
 
This week the President will be delivering the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. He needs to act like a war president. During the speech he needs to declare that “terrorism is job #1” and “not winning in Afghanistan is not an option.” If he does anything less, then both allies and adversaries will question his commitment to winning the long war. 
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.
  
 

Exclusive: National Health Care Killed My Mum – A Tale of Two Cancer Victims

Tim Wilson

Dateline USA, five years ago, my father-in-law was diagnosed with liver cancer and given six months to live. But in upstate New York, he was seen by an oncologist the day after he saw his family physician and had a scan that same day. He then discussed his options with both of those doctors and a radiologist, and was able to make an informed choice, balancing risks and rewards along with quality of life. He fought a long and brave battle, underwent three rounds of chemotherapy and two rounds of radiation and continued to live a full and rewarding life, admittedly with a few bad patches along the way, until the week before his death four years later.
 
My father-in-law was brave, determined and lucky. He beat the odds a number of times and he had good insurance as a result of a lifetime of hard work. He had the great medical care that America has to offer. He made good treatment decisions, on a well-informed basis. As a result, he maintained a good quality of life to within a few days of the end. It was an inspiring time for all who knew him well enough to know what he faced. We were all privileged to know him and glad he had the extra time for which he fought so hard, and with an excellent medical team supporting and guiding him, he was able to make so much of that time.
 
Dateline UK, nearly seven years ago, my mother went to her local doctor with a throat problem. As a (retired) nurse, she knew it was serious, and so did her general practitioner (family doctor). However, due to her age (she was 75 at the time), the UK’s National Health System has such a backlog of need for specialist appointments that she could not get an appointment for six weeks. The ENT (ear, nose, throat) specialist said she needed an urgent scan as it looked like cancer. The “urgent” scan was fixed for the first available date – 17 weeks ahead. My mother died two weeks before she was due to go for her scan. The hospice care she had in her last few weeks was wonderful, but I wonder every day how well she might have done with rapid treatment.
 
Does the USA need health care reform? Yes. Does the USA need socialized medicine? NO!!!
 
Currently, health care costs the UK 18 percent of all government spending (more than four times they spend on defense). This has risen steadily over the years while the quality of care has declined. A major reason for this is that there are more non-medical administrators and “managers” employed by the National Health Service than there are nurses – typical of any government program and one certain consequence of government-run health care! Medical technology is extremely limited and patients often wait for weeks, months and even years for treatments which are regarded in the USA as commonplace. It is normal in the UK to be placed on a “waiting list” for treatment for a wide range of problems. It is also true, though not often admitted, that there is rationing of health care there based on age, severity, scarcity and cost.
 
The only upside of health care in the UK is that treatment is “free” (if you don’t count the 18 percent of all taxes required by this highly inefficient system). So, if you have an accident while visiting the UK, you will be treated without having to produce proof of insurance – but then, that is also true in the USA.
 
So, what reforms would actually make a difference to the system here?
 
Tort Reform
 
Competent doctors who give their honest, best efforts to help their patients deserve both reasonable remuneration and to live without the expense and constant threat of litigation. Remuneration is a matter for the individual or the team he chooses to join, although Medicare repayments are, unsurprisingly for this government administered system, often below minimum wage levels (see last paragraph for a true story about this). Litigation is a matter for legislators and judges at every level. The current system is weighted far too heavily in favor of the ambulance chasers. Judges could do much more to reduce this threat to doctors by ensuring that frivolous litigation is harshly punished by penalizing both claimants and their lawyers. Legislators could simplify current laws and produce a carefully crafted set of legal guidelines which would provide a fair process for victims of incompetence or carelessness, while ensuring that doctors who give an honest, best effort are not subjected to legal harassment. Such legal reform would reduce the overall cost of health care in this great country by very significant degree.
 
Insurance
 
The other area for true and significant health care reform is insurance practices. This is certainly an area for federal legislation as it we need insurance which is freely available on a national basis. Most other goods and services are nationally available, and the Internet has provided a boon to us all in raising competition and reducing prices for almost every commodity, with the notable exception of health care insurance. If I can buy car insurance from a national provider to cover me wherever I drive, why can’t I buy health insurance on the same basis? I already get a discount for using the same national company for my home insurance, and my life insurance. I would appreciate the option to get another discount for health insurance from the same provider with whom I already have experience.
 
Final Thoughts
 
I am bemused by the rush to “nationalize” health care here not only because of my own experience, but also because of the obvious comparisons with so many other systems. I do not see a system labeled as “in crisis” by the White House and its liberal supporters. I see a fine system which needs some reform to make it more affordable for the vast majority, who already pay for the emergency treatment available to those who cannot or do not buy their own health cover. Even if the system is “in crisis,” it is not so bad that any debate over change needs to be or should be conducted other than openly, transparently and with considered deliberation.
 
Moreover, I find the claim that unless the current system is fixed, healthcare here will bankrupt the country astonishing. Such a claim requires, to quote Hilary Clinton, a “willing suspension of disbelief.” Indeed, the experience of Britain and Canada is that their inferior healthcare systems have so grossly damaged their economies as to have driven them to the brink of bankruptcy – repeatedly! Any claims that the current liberal plans for healthcare “reform” will do other than raise spending, and hence taxes, are patently false. Indeed, it is certain that the current legislation will, no matter how amended, do nothing but cost us all a very great deal of money, some of which we will all pay as prices rise not just on healthcare but on all goods and services and may well cost our children much, much more when the debts currently being run up come due for payment.
 
Our government is not efficient, and making claims to reduce costs through efficiency savings are another fallacy (that’s a polite word for wrong or even a lie). There is no way government can reduce Medicare spending without reducing consumer services. Last night I was told of a general internist in New York who, working six hours “on call” one weekend, was paid the grand total of 51 cents (yes, cents) by Medicare for her efforts. No matter how dedicated and enthusiastic, no future doctor is going to go through years of arduous training to earn 8 cents an hour! New York City residents beware – you are not going to have any doctors left other than in private practice, and when that is nationalized you won’t have any at all. There is a lesson here for everyone.
 
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Tim Wilson is a retired British Army officer who now works as an independent consultant. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
 

 

 

 

Categorized under: BOOKS.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.