Dems Not Serious About Missile Defense

Friday we got the news that Iranians were in North Korea to witness the missile tests on July 4th. This raises new issues about the coordination between these two members of the axis of evil and what new threats they may be planning.

Japan and the United States also announced plans to install missile defense systems at Congressman Jack Murtha's favorite military base in Okinawa as well as place advanced missile defense systems on Japan's Aegis cruisers.

After the threats from North Korea, and what we have been witnessing from Syrian and Iranian rockets and missiles targeting civilians in Israel, there is a renewed push to advance the technology for missile defense.

A renewed push by all who take defense and deterrence seriously. Apparently, that still excludes many Democrats.

Here's an excerpt from an editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has now defied world opinion by test-firing a Taepodong-2 missile capable of hitting San Francisco. The fact that the missile failed is small consolation, since we are also now seeing in Lebanon a further proliferation of missiles from Syria and Iran that can reach deep into Israel. Does anyone doubt that Iran, or some other adversary, will build an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. as soon as it is able?

All of which makes the U.S. political debate over missile defenses worth revisiting, not least because some Democrats are still trying to strangle the program. In the House, John Tierney of Massachusetts this year proposed cutting the Pentagon's missile-defense budget by more than half. His amendment was defeated on the House floor, but it won the support of more than half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

A successful test of the latest anti-missile technology on July 12. No thanks to Democrats!

Meanwhile in the Senate, Carl Levin (D., Mich.) offered in June to cut off funds for the ground-based interceptor program that Mr. Bush recently activated in Alaska in anticipation of the North Korean launch. Mr. Levin wants to stop new interceptors from being built, but Senate Republicans wouldn't bring his proposal up for a vote. Mr. Levin has been waging his own private war against missile defenses for a generation, to the point of outflanking Russian objections on the political left.

No missile defense is perfect, but even our current rudimentary shield has proven to be strategically useful these past few weeks. The Navy had at least one ship-based Aegis missile-defense system deployed off the Korean coast, with a potential to shoot down a North Korean missile. The Aegis cruisers have successfully shot down missiles in seven of eight tests in recent years, and could become an important player in protecting allies and U.S. forces against regional missile threats. The U.S. is also dispatching PAC-3s, a more sophisticated version of the Patriot anti-missile system, to Japan. This kind of capability adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures allies and enhances American influence.

Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses. Going back to 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy dismissed Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful "Star Wars" program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds. Republicans made funding defenses part of their Contract with America and spent most of the 1990s battling the Clinton Administration to keep the program alive.

It seems old habits die hard. And even though we are entering an even more dangerous age when terrorists and dictators are threatening with ever more advance lethal weapons, some Democrats still try and deprive us of the technological edge which history has proven keeps us safe.

For those who claim that there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans, keep this issue in mind as the fall election nears. There is no clearer difference between the two parties than a superior defense advocated by Republicans and a reliance on the U.N. a "global test" and unilateral disarmament offered by Democrats.