I've seen no substantial criticism of this - just Obama Derangement Syndrome

In just what geopolitical scenario does Iran attack Europe with missiles?

pity gates has to undo BushCo's little european adventure under his new boss. my first thoughts on it are that it sure is a great distraction from all the killin' and dyin' in af-pak...

NEEDLESS and a fucking idiotic continuation of disaster.

Something I still don't get about this: we're scrapping the Czech and Polish defense systems. Yet we will still be putting these SM-3 defenses somewhere in southern or central Europe.

Setting aside the technical considerations, what's the big difference?

The sad part is that even with this 'readjustment', we keep pouring more money into the blackhole of armaments. No cutbacks, not even a reduction in the rate of increase.

It's not like there is no need for better radars in the states. Seems like air traffic control has been trying their radar for 10 or 20 years.

We need to scrap a lot of defense in a lot of places. The only thing being defended are the profits for the defense contractors, and our pretensions of being the biggest dog on the block.

Why does anyone think The U.S. needs to protect Europe from Iran?

I've seen no substantial criticism of this - just Obama Derangement Syndrome

I don't need to substantiate anything. I never do. My constituents love my huckleberry persona. Oh, and John McCain Rocks.

Setting aside the technical considerations, what's the big difference?

SM-3's are essentially the ballistic missile defense missile used by the Aegis combat system on Navy ships. Unlike the Star Wars missile defense systems - this one actually works most of the time. The Star Wars missile defense is pretty much a HUGE, non-functional, Reagan era, defense boondoggle. From a purely technical point of view, the Star Wars missile system was nothing but pissing money down a black hole (or to defense contractors). This system repeatedly FAILED it's performance testing.

The Aegis system and the SM-3 missile has been around a while and is widely shared with our allies (i.e. everybody knows range/payload envelope, etc).

This goes a bit of a way towards explaining WHY Russia and others were very concerned about ground base, long range missile defense missiles - because these missiles had the lift capacity and range to carry nukes. We'd be pretty pissed if Russia tried to put SRBM's in a very close country, say like Cuba. And the Cuban missile crisis was just about as close as this country and world have ever come to a nuclear holocaust.

I will make no pretense about understanding WHY the US is concerned about an Iranian missile attack. I honestly don't think they are - they're much more concerned about a resurgent and belligerent Russia.

Garnash - you need to read more closely - you can't scrap what doesn't exist. We're changing the PROPOSAL for placing missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. In fact, according to Gates the result is missile defenses sooner than the original plan.

Still kind of stupid as noted by others - but since it's all mobile, if silly season ends we can ship it elsewhere.

why are we protecting Europe?
Are they paying for the full cost of the missile deployment?
They have universal health care; we don't!!!
Stupid America.

As a resident in Central Europe, I don't find the prospect of scores of American SM-3 missiles arriving in my vicinity particularly attractive. Have the European people been asked if they want this kind of intrusion? It seems that the American establishment assumes it has some preordained right to stomp all over other people's countries plonking their provocative military hardware wherever they choose. I, and many of my fellows, consider this offensive and ill-mannered.

If Iran really is the threat that Mr Gates claims, then surely the appropriate policy is to find a way to disarm Iran. Why should other peaceable people be held hostage to a third party's megalomaniac expansionism? Deal with Iran - don't intrude upon and compromise other people's independence and self-respect.

The Orwellian audacity of this column is breathtaking. There is no missile threat to Europe!

Iran is not going to attack Europe! They would be obliterated!
Russia is not going to attack Europe! Mutually assured destruction is still in place!
As both Iraq and Afghanistan have conclusively proven, military force has little effect deterring terrorism!
If you are concerned about the 80,000 American troops based in Europe, bring them home. We certainly would never allow foreign military bases on our soil, and we might want to start considering that people in other nations resent them as must as we would.
The casual contempt that this column demonstrates toward the American people, and its complete disregard for the practice of democracy is disturbing. However, I the see the defense industry is lavishly praised for their latest contributions to world peace.
In actual fact, every bomb or tank that is built, every provocative military deployment, is, in an already nuclear armed world that is accelerating its nuclear proliferation, a dangerous threat our future. This is not naive pacifism, it is simply the observation that violence and even threats of violence tend to beget violence in return. We need to recognize that US foreign policy is largley based on precisely this threat, and it scares the crap out of people. What would we do in their place? We would take what steps we needed to protect our nation's interest. I.e., we would arm ourselves with the largest and most dangerous weapons we could find. Realize that we are the ones driving this situation by the global deployment of our military. Other nations, including Iran, are behaving perfectly rationally in their own self-interest when they seek some deterrence capacity. And all of this increases the probability of catastrophe.
The adjustments described by Gates and by Clinton are just that, tactical adjustments. The strategy of military domination, i.e., persausion through force and the threat of force, remains in place.
To defend this just because it is the position of the administration is not only dishonest and craven, it may ultimately turn out to be suicidal.

I especially enjoy the cognitive disconnect here. One right-winger is screaming about how we don't want to turn the US healthcare system into a commie-fascist-European-style nightmare, while another right-winger is screaming about how we can't let down our commie-fascist-European allies.

I guess the Republican party is a bigger tent than I thought. Pstt.

I'm also wondering why 'we', America, is paying for a missle defense shield for Europe. Why wouldn't the European nation that would be protected by such a thing not establish it on their own? Or at least contract such work out to America or American contractors is such a thing can't be provided by "domestic" agents. It feels a lot like we're protecting our Empire. I'm not a fan.

Glen,

"SM-3's are essentially the ballistic missile defense missile used by the Aegis combat system on Navy ships. Unlike the Star Wars missile defense systems - this one actually works most of the time."

Yes it does. Against PLANES.

America does not posses the technology to hit a missile with a missile without a rigged test. Nobody on the planet has the technology to hit a missile with a missile without a rigged test.

"The Aegis system and the SM-3 missile has been around a while and is widely shared with our allies"

Think Patriot missiles.

There was once an anti-ABM treaty signed with the Soviets. Bush unilaterally abrogated it as part of the Republican catechism. What Obama is doing here is returning the US to its treaty obligations.