When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon in 2001, he immediately set out to reorganize the nation's missile defense program into a powerful new agency that operated without the kind of oversight normally applied to Pentagon programs.
Democrats did not particularly like what Rumsfeld was doing in creating the Missile Defense Agency, but they did not have the political muscle to stop him. And after Sept. 11, the "whatever it takes" mind set that had taken hold in Washington further dampened their ability to challenge the program.
For example, Democrats mostly failed in their attempts to reduce the agency's budget, which Republicans fed with tens of billions of dollars on the strength of Rumsfeld's A-vision of a missile system that could defend the country and its allies from potential nuclear threats such as Iran and North Korea.
Now, energized by their majority status and fueled by reports from watchdogs such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Democrats are starting to rein in the agency and what they consider the Bush administration's questionable plan for missile defense by exerting closer oversight and budgetary constraints.
They say the MDA, which received $9 billion this year, operates too far outside normal government supervision, and that it has been allowed to take an inappropriately large role in selling U.S. missile capabilities abroad.
The MDA also faces questions related to its technical capabilities, as experts debate whether the testing that's been done so far justifies the Bush administration's effort to rapidly deploy the system. There is now a limited missile defense system on the West Coast, but some former Defense officials, rocket scientists and experts at defense think tanks say the system offers only rudimentary protection from ballistic missiles.
This criticism comes at a time in which the MDA is in transition itself, as it evolves from an experimental agency operating in its own sphere into a more mature defense system whose programs are increasingly incorporated into the armed services and whose actions are integral to U.S. relationships with allies and partners.
[ ... ]
Defense-minded Democrats such as Tauscher are caught between their general support for missile defense and their desire to bring more accountability to the program.
Congress has appropriated more than $100 billion for missile defense since the program was started in the 1980s. Current forecasts are that Congress will be asked to spend another $50 billion or so between now and 2013.
For all its faults and failings, though, missile defense in an age of terrorism is difficult for politicians to challenge, even for the Democrats and moderate Republicans who have doubts about the program.
In the end, the system gets support because it has a loyal and powerful contingent of backers in Congress who argue that the United States cannot afford to spare any expense in countering the growing threat of ballistic missiles.
[ ... ]
But critics say the administration, in its rush to deploy the system, has ignored the sound acquisition and good-governance practices that would increase the chances for success.
Thomas Christie, who from 2001 to 2005 was the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, said the Pentagon's policy of producing components before they've been shown to work as part of a larger missile defense system ran counter to the usual "fly before you buy" axiom of government procurement.
[ ... ]
Overall, Congress gave the MDA about $8.7 billion for fiscal 2008, $185 million less than Bush's $8.85 billion request, taking some funds away from futuristic technology programs.
As part of their strategy of incrementally expanding the examination and control of missile defense programs, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs has started an investigation of the program and has begun a series of public hearings.
~ full article ~
No comments:
Post a Comment