Turkey and Missile Defense
Certain turns of phrase are repeated so often in the news that they somehow sound logical, even though they make no sense at all. One of the most interesting recent examples is the idea that persuading Turkey to host early warning radar as part of NATO's missile defense system is some huge diplomatic achievement.
This makes no sense at all. The missile threat to Turkey is real. It's powerless to project its own military power (into Syria, for example) because of it. If I lived in a gangland with a high likelihood of drive-by shootings, it would not be hard to persuade me to accept a bulletproof vest. Obviously I wouldn't relax entirely because I was wearing it, but I'd certainly consider it better than nothing.
That the Iranians are going berserk because Turkey has agreed to participate suggests rather strongly that the missile threat is real. Look, it's common sense: If I'm not planning to shoot you and you insist upon wearing a bulletproof vest around the house, I'd shrug and say, "Suit yourself, weirdo." It would only bother me if I wanted to reserve the threat of terrorizing you.
Missile defense is all gain for Turkey, no loss. Poland and the Czech Republic were begging for it-- doesn't anyone remember that? When Obama declined, the tabloids in Poland read "Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back." That's what the Turks still say about the Cuban missile crisis, when we secretly agreed to dismantle the Jupiter ICBMs. Want to bet they'd be furious if we had refused to include them in the system? No need to bet, I can promise you they would be.
So why is convincing Turkey to accept a diminished risk of being obliterated by missiles being portrayed as a victory?
I'm putting this in simple terms, but there's really no reason to make this complicated.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
If you believe that escalation is the worst thing in the world then naturally increasing a nations defenses is bad. It forces belligerent nations to increase their offensive capabilities to maintain an advantage or re-establish the status quo. Since, in their view we or our allies are not in any way better than our adversaries our attempts to defend ourselves are viewed as equally bad as their attempts to arm themselves to threaten us. This equating of defense to offense means that lowering our defenses will also get the aggressors to lower their offensive capabilities.
To them the only way to make things better is for us and our allies to disarm, which would naturally mean our enemies would no longer need to be armed. They just assume everyone views things this way, and wants this. So if we have convinced an ally to become more protected we must have tricked them from doing what they really want to do, which is disarm so as to lower tensions. Thus a diplomatic feat for us, evil war mongers.
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
The reason it's portrayed as a triumph is because that's the line the media is fed by State and Defense, both of whom have important reasons for doing so: State wants to show that they're improving relations with a particularly difficult erstwhile ally, and Defense wants to reinforce NATO solidarity and make sure the missile-defense systems don't attract red ink in the next budget.
The same dynamic probably obtains in Turkey—the AKP gets to say, “Hey, we’re still trying to make nice with the Americans and NATO,” and at the same time they get to make an absolute, total, no-brainer of a national-security call, no matter what the problems with the neighbors it engenders (and how much it exposes the zero-problems policy as a fantasy).
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Bill Walsh: The reason it's portrayed as a triumph is because that's the line the media is fed by State and Defense, both of whom have important reasons for doing so: State wants to show that they're improving relations with a particularly difficult erstwhile ally, and Defense wants to reinforce NATO solidarity and make sure the missile-defense systems don't attract red ink in the next budget.
The same dynamic probably obtains in Turkey—the AKP gets to say, “Hey, we’re still trying to make nice with the Americans and NATO,” and at the same time they get to make an absolute, total, no-brainer of a national-security call, no matter what the problems with the neighbors it engenders (and how much it exposes the zero-problems policy as a fantasy). · Oct 11 at 9:20pm
Of course. It's--again--the journalists' willingness to go along with what they're fed that never ceases to surprise me. It is a total no-brainer of a national-security call! Obviously!
May '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
So why is convincing Turkey to accept a diminished risk of being obliterated by missiles being portrayed as a victory?
The fact that missile defense per se is a rational military decision, I think, has little to do with the answer to your question. I can see two reasons to consider this a diplomatic victory.
First, it binds Turkey to the United States militarily and strategically in a way the fading NATO alliance can't even approach on paper. Here's the short list of our major partners in the missile defense project, countries with real hardware: UK, Israel, Japan, Denmark, and now Turkey.
Second, it places a wedge between Turkey, on the one hand, and Russia, China, Iran on the other.
Edit: A third reason that occurred to me after reading the final sentence of this Heritage article is that the US was able to convince Turkey that we're not going turn around and dump them like we did with our last two dance partners.
Edited on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:57pmDec '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
It is simple Claire. This is the neurosis that the leftys have worked us into. By legitimizing the the little besij thug and his partner the tin-horned supreme leader Ayatollah, who even the other Ayatollahs hate, we have turned ourselves into moral cooked spaghetti. We are ever so thankful that one of those (I can't say the word..OK..I'll spell it...I..s..l..a..m..i..c) countries is taking on this grotesque terror state that denies the holocaust while hoping for a second holocaust (quite a logical trick).
You would think that with these cards delt Puff the Magic President would have a field day with the Bully Pulpit (with teleprompter). I'm sure there are a few Republicans who would like the position with the white pieces and declare mate in three. (mixing my gaming metaphors). Unfortunately, we will probably be in for another episode of "Screwing Up Western Civiilization" as Obambo lets the Iranian ratboy off the hook.
Please Gd, Novenber 6, 2012 ASAP!
Edited on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:09pmRe: Turkey and Missile Defense
Mark Wilson
Edit: A third reason that occurred to me after reading the final sentence of this Heritage article is that the US was able to convince Turkey that we're not going turn around and dump them like we did with our last two dance partners. · Oct 11 at 9:40pm
Edited on Oct 11 at 09:57 pm
But the way this should have been framed is that it's Turkey who needs to persuade us. In the real world, we are not a threat to Turkey. Russia and Iran are. You surely don't see anyone crowing that we've managed to persuade Japan that they need missile defense. North Korea did the job just fine.
May '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
But the way this should have been framed is that it's Turkey who needs to persuade us. In the real world, we are not a threat to Turkey. Russia and Iran are. You surely don't see anyone crowing that we've managed to persuade Japan that they need missile defense. North Korea did the job just fine.
Maybe it needs to be clarified that this was not persuading Turkey to let us defend them from ballistic missiles. We would defend them anyway to the best of our abilities because they are in NATO, and we'd probably defend them if they weren't just out of principle.
This was persuading the Turks to let us deploy a mobile radar system in Turkey that will help us defend Europe and the eastern United States from a ballistic missile attack originating in the Middle East. If anything, this makes Turkey more of a target for conventional attack from a Middle Eastern aggressor, or from the Russians if they were to feel the need to neutralize US missile defense in the region.
P.S. This is the radar system that was tested on Wake Island back in April.
Edited on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:42pmApr '11
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
As I remember it, the Jupiter missiles were already obsolescent and had been recommended for decommissioning before Kennedy offered them in trade to the Soviets, but I'm a little hazy on that.
One thing I do remember clearly though, as a young GI, was taking B-52's to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan. Many of them had cracked wing spars and had thus been cannibalized for other usable parts. The ICBM's that the Soviets traded for them as part of the SALT agreements were so old & rusty they were unlaunchable.
It seems that those were instances of political theater more than a serious military decision like the early warning radar/missile defense for Turkey/Eastern Europe.
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Glenn the Iconoclast: As I remember it, the Jupiter missiles were already obsolescent and had been recommended for decommissioning before Kennedy offered them in trade to the Soviets, but I'm a little hazy on that.
...
It seems that those were instances of political theater more than a serious military decision like the early warning radar/missile defense for Turkey/Eastern Europe. · Oct 11 at 11:45p
Turkey sure didn't see it that way.
Dec '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
The first law of foreign affairs in the Middle East dictates that in a country whose government is hostile to American interests, its population will over time tend to our side; while a government having cozy and complicit ties with ours will suffer popular unrest and risk rebellion against it.
The coin of ME countries in our diplomacy with them has to always show that heads they win, tails we lose, which also supports the paradox of their myriad conspiracy theories in which they remain somehow the victims.
Sounds contradictory that in diplomatic relations with the powerful US their government has to maintain the appearance of the stronger of the two in order to give commerce to their population’s conspiracies of victimhood in forced dealings with us, but at the head of a ME country, you would rather have your population blaming us for their misery, not their own leaders.
From their point of view, their leaders made us build, pay for, and supply them with a bulletproof vest because that’s what they told us to do; and even though they didn’t really want it from us, they accepted it from us anyway.
That’s successful diplomacy.
Apr '11
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Thanks for the link.
It appears that it was the worst of both worlds: the Jupes were obsolete, and yet we dismayed our ally by removing them.
Regarding the political theater aspect: I was too hasty in that assessment. Since it was a private arrangement between the USSR and the US (rather than an open quid pro quo), I inadequately considered that of course the Turks were aware of it as well. I was a dumbhead.
May '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Glenn the Iconoclast: As I remember it, the Jupiter missiles were already obsolescent and had been recommended for decommissioning before Kennedy offered them in trade to the Soviets, but I'm a little hazy on that.
...
It seems that those were instances of political theater more than a serious military decision like the early warning radar/missile defense for Turkey/Eastern Europe. · Oct 11 at 11:45p
Turkey sure didn't see it that way. · Oct 12 at 12:15am
It's not my intent to oppose you on all fronts, Claire, but according to that telegram it seems Glenn was right. The Jupiters were "obsolete, of no military value and [a] good Soviet target" yet the Turks wanted to keep them as something of "symbolic importance" because the "fact that Jupiters are obsolescent and vulnerable does not apparently affect present Turkish thinking."
It seems that in 2011 you want the Turks to use an objective assessment of missile defense, but you also seem sympathetic to their primarily symbolic argument to keep the Jupiter missiles in 1962. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my reading.
Fascinating to read that telegram, btw. Thanks for sharing it.
Edited on Oct 12, 2011 at 1:12amRe: Turkey and Missile Defense
You're not opposing me--you're actually my authority on the technical side of this. My question is: If they were so "obsolete," why did the Soviets want them gone? That the Polaris was more advanced does not necessarily mean the Jupiter was strategically useless. That they were vulnerable does not mean they were no deterrent at all.
May '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
My question is: If they were so "obsolete," why did the Soviets want them gone? That the Polaris was more advanced does not necessarily mean the Jupiter was strategically useless. That they were vulnerable does not mean they were no deterrent at all. · Oct 12 at 12:56am
I am pretty slim on the details, but I have always found these kind of negotiations arcane, exchanging this for that weapon system or putting some weapons under treaty but not others (For example, the new version of START counts a strategic bomber aircraft as a single nuclear warhead no matter how many it can carry).
It could be that the Soviets overestimated the Jupiter's capabilities, much like we overestimated the MiG-25 and reacted by producing the vastly superior F-15.
Chances are that our missiles were more advanced than theirs, so they may have seen the Jupiter as a peer (just speculating).
It was all classified, after all, and half of deterrence is posturing. To remove them is a win-win then, since the Soviets think they are declawing the lion and the Americans are happy to dismantle an outdated and expensive-to-maintain weapon system.
Aug '10
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
There is a concept in Nuclear Deterrence thought called 'sovereign basing' and it refers to being able to unambiguously assign responsibility for what happens to land based nuclear assets.
This line from the telegram bears out the value of sovereign basing, "...He makes very clear that Turkey regards these Jupiters as symbol of Alliance's determination to use atomic weapons against Russian attack on Turkey whether by large conventional or nuclear forces, although Turks have been most reluctant admit presence IRBM's publicly." (emphasis added).
Having the missiles there strengthened the Turkish belief that America would defend them and that the Soviet Union, recognizing the presence of nuclear weapons on Turkish soil, would be deterred from attacking Turkey. So the presence of the missiles Assured our allies and Deterred the Soviets. (The capitalized words are two of the fundamental concepts that underlay current nuclear strategy, the last being Dissuasion.)
During this time, the US based ICBM fleet was becoming operational and while I don't know why the Soviets wanted them removed from Turkey, the cost does make sense.
Edited on Oct 12, 2011 at 2:21amFeb '11
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
I look at all of this a little differently. Turkey historically has had four enemies -- Arab Muslims, Iranian (Persian) Muslims, Russian Christians, and European Christians. Europeans (and Americans) are off the table at the moment as enemies and are currently allies. The problem for the Turks are the other three. Turkey is currently taking steps that estrange her from European and American allies. At the same time Turkey is simply delivering herself into the hands of others who would readily make a meal of her. So my real question is: Is it stupidity or insanity on Turkey's part? And why should Europeans and Americans come to her aid when there are so few capabilities that Turkey actually can offer them other than a buffer area? Buffer area is not of inconsiderable value, but really that is all that Turkey is offering while at the same time taking every opportunity to stick a finger in the eye of allies.
Apr '11
Re: Turkey and Missile Defense
"My question is: If they were so "obsolete," why did the Soviets want them gone? That the Polaris was more advanced does not necessarily mean the Jupiter was strategically useless. That they were vulnerable does not mean they were no deterrent at all."
In part the Soviets wanted them removed for the same reason that the US wanted the SS-4's removed from Cuba: having an IRBM in your front yard greatly reduces your reaction time.
The Jupiters could cover roughly the eastern third of the Soviet Union (including Moscow and, barely, Leningrad) whereas the SS-4's could range over 2/3's of the Lower 48, all the way out to Salt Lake City. Both were liquid fueled, requiring substantial maintenance and preparation.
I agree with you that they were not "useless" or "no deterrent." I also agree with Mark that with classified systems, it is difficult to precisely know enemy capability. The Soviets may have suspected and feared that the reaction time of the Jupiters was substantially better than that of the SS-4's and were thus eager to have them removed.
(Western, of course.)
Edited on Oct 13, 2011 at 1:12amRe: Turkey and Missile Defense
No, it's shrewd and rational. As far as I can see, Turkey hasn't remotely alienated the US or Europe. They've correctly appreciated that they can play both sides of the fence indefinitely.