Yes, it's a fine strong boy - the son of Star Wars
We need to face up to the fact that the Bush administration want this
Special report: George W Bush's America <http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/>
Peter Preston
Monday January 15, 2001
The Guardian
The old president, hip broken, mind tragically blank, lies almost forgotten
in a Santa Monica hospital bed: yet his dream lives. And the resilience of
Ronald Reagan's dream cannot any longer be brushed aside. Like the latest
PlayStation or the newest Man U strip, there is always "progress": which
means that there will be a Son of Star Wars. It is not, of course, going to
be an easy sell - especially here. The original version, with Ronnie playing
Luke Skywalker and Gorbachev bizarrely cast as Darth Vader, was always a
public relations disaster here (like Frankenstein foods). George W is not,
perhaps, the "son" most immediate residents of Fylingdales would have in
mind - nor William Hague his ideal uncle. But it is also time to be
realistic. The question is no longer whether, just when and how. The hanging
chads have settled it.
Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush's defence secretary, was chairman, three years
ago, of the definitive National Missile Defence commission which spurred
Bill Clinton into half-hearted action. To see him emerge, second time round,
on top of a Republican Pentagon is to see the future laid out before us.
Rumsfeld believes in the clear, present or imminent, danger of "rogue
states" - North Korea, Iran, Iraq - with nuclear missiles. Accordingly,
America must have NMD. The anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 that stands
in the way is, as he told his Senate confirmation hearing, "ancient
history".
An interesting phrase, cutting both ways. Lord Roy Mason of Barnsley was
Harold Wilson's defence secretary in the long ago when Gerald Ford first
gave Rumsfeld the job. Even so, it's fair enough to indulge in a little
archeological excavation. The ancient world of 1972, of Warsaw pact and
Nato, has vanished just as surely as the world where the Shah and Saddam
were the staunchest of western allies.
Why, indeed, not think afresh? That's what Tony Blair, learning the bitter
lessons of the Balkans, has done over a European rapid reaction force.
(Rumsfeld says American troops are coming out of Kosovo: "I've concluded
over a period of years that the US isn't a good peacekeeper.") Why, indeed,
not adjust to a 21st century in which the European Union is an economic
competitor of Washington whose defence concerns cannot be wholly ordained
from inside a distant beltway?
Why? Because any revised thinking in such areas is complicated, liable to
disturb fustian concepts like the "special relationship" (words you
curiously never hear invoked in DC). Ronald Reagan, perforce, had a better
way. If you're selling anything new, if you're piling on extra billions of
tax dollars, you have to keep it simple. Star Wars, in his bumbling,
picket-fence version, was simple: a hi-tech security blanket that would keep
Americans safe from alien harm. Son of Star Wars precisely replicates that
pitch.
It discerns a threat - from North Korea sometime in the next 10 years, from
Iran in the next 15, from Iraq in 20 (Rumsfeld commission figures) - and
provides a response. It does not explicitly say that Russia, China and the
Ukraine might lurk somewhere behind that thinking because, in a world
conditioned by manic Hollywood villains, that would be complicated. It does
not pause to explain why Pakistani or Indian nukes should always be friendly
ones, and thus excluded from the reckoning.
Keep the threat simple. Make it - as Rumsfeld does - the technological
alternative to deploying American boys in overseas wars, where they might
get sponged by their own depleted uranium. See how cheaply such safety may
be bought? "I don't personally believe that it involves much financial
implication -" What's $60bn when AoL-Time Warner is worth double that? A few
gallant souls on Capitol Hill have their objections, of course. They point
out that North Korea is changing hugely, that any self-respecting terrorist
state would probably ship its bombs to Chicago in a suitcase, that the
moment you set up a small shield is the moment your enemies (if any) seek
ways to find ways around it. They preach of self-delusion. But we ought to
be clear that the two central arguments currently deployed against NMD
aren't going to run.
One (with a long history of embarrassing failure) says the technology isn't
there yet. It won't work. But Americans believe in making things work: the
argument is a spur to greater effort, not a blocker. The other (with an
equally long and dismal record) says Rumsfeld is wrong and that the project
will, in reality, cost squillions. Of course. But that cash will go to some
of the Republicans' biggest corporate donors - and to the interests served
on Pork Barrel Hill. Start, and they won't stop.
In sum, if Tony Blair believes that somehow this Son won't happen, that the
question about Fylingdales will never be put, he deludes himself. William
Hague's pygmy interventions - snuggling up to George W, driving another
surrogate stake into the European Union - are only the beginning. Mute delay
isn't an option. Mr Blair must see (already) how tempting the supposed
security blanket can be made to sound. Graciously extend it to cover us and
we're happy. Instead, he needs to say something early - and simple.
Not impossible. 1972 may be ancient history, but Russia's 6,000 strategic
missiles aren't. Abrogate the ABM treaty and bang goes Start 2 (article two,
paragraph two), which is an umbilical part of the process reducing those
warheads. Who wants to jettison Start 3 and the reduction to 2,000? Where's
the security in that? Who can blame not just Britain, but all western
Europe, for backing the idea if - and only if - Russia accepts NMD? And, of
course, no one wants to cling barrenly to a hoary treaty conceived in quite
other times. Let there be a new treaty which deals with the realities of a
new millennium. Call for Colin Powell.
Rogue states, for what they're worth? Why not (as Senator John Kerry asks)
go the US Navy way with theatre- wide defence systems that could
specifically knock out Taepo-Dong Two's as they left North Korea - not rely
on catching up with them much later? Easier, though not yet fully developed,
technology: a specific response to a specific threat.
If security is the aim, if like most Americans you want and will pay for
such security, then this is the way forward. A big tent, not a narrow
blanket. Does any of it make your heart leap with joy? Not really. But
observe how the weevils work, how our MoD is already reportedly "more
enthusiastic" about NMD than our Foreign Office. Boys need their toys.
Voters need their palliatives. George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will have
their inquiries, their plans and their "great debate". That's a debate - for
Europe and for Russia - that we can't bow out of. It's starting. Can we
please begin clearing our throats?

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************