When Bush named Donald H. Rumsfeld as his Defense Secretary-designate, he signaled his intention to assign this well-seasoned Pentagon veteran the task of doing a "selling job" on missile defense to Congress and U.S. allies. Given the serious technical, cost, and arms-control problems plaguing the proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system, that will be no small task.

Technically speaking, there's nothing to sell just yet. As President Clinton stated in September in his decision to defer deployment of the NMD system to the next administration, "I simply cannot conclude with the information I have today that we have enough confidence in the technology, and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system, to move forward to deployment."

The system has failed two of its three intercept tests. Regardless of whether it succeeds in its next intercept test scheduled for sometime this spring, serious questions remain about the system's ability to defend against real-world threats where an attack by a rogue state would be accompanied by countermeasures and decoys.

The cost estimates for the limited NMD system currently being tested range from the modest $60 billion figure from the Congressional Budget Office up to $120 billion. Logically, a missile defense "triad" consisting of sea-, space- and ground-based interceptors - the system Bush and his Republican counterparts are advocating - could cost $240 billion or more.

Furthermore, even if the NMD system can be made to "work" on the military/technical level without breaking the budget, a hasty decision to deploy NMD poses grave risks to U.S. and global stability.

A deployment decision could derail Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's offer to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,000 strategic warheads each and would almost certainly provoke new nuclear weapons production by Russia and China. As a National Intelligence Estimate suggested last summer, deployment of an NMD system would set off "an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects ... that would include a sharp build-up of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of military technology in the Middle East."

Against this backdrop it is clear that Rumsfeld has his work cut out for him. But as Charles Aldinger of Reuters appropriately noted, "Rumsfeld is well placed to deal with the thorny question of deploying a missile defense." His close involvement with conservative think tanks and missile defense contractors puts him in the middle of the lobby that has promoted missile defense for decades.

Despite Rumsfeld's reputation as a moderate Republican with pragmatic views on security issues, his long-standing ties with pro-Star Wars think tanks such as Empower America and the Center for Security Policy cast serious doubts on these characterizations. When it comes to vital national security issues such as missile defense and nuclear arms control, Donald Rumsfeld is an ideologue in moderate's clothing.

Rumsfeld's most praised work of late has been his key role in leading the congressionally mandated panel charged with assessing the ballistic missile threat facing the United States. The unclassified summary of the report, released in the summer of 1998, asserted that - within five years of deciding to do so - a rogue state such as North Korea or Iran could acquire a ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. Previous CIA estimates had placed the timetable at 10 or 15 years. The report painted the ultimate worst-case scenario, ignoring all of the real-world obstacles Third World countries face in trying to obtain a long-range ballistic missile capability and playing up any factors (however remote) that might increase their chances of getting usable ballistic missiles in a shorter time frame.

Though the report did not explicitly advocate missile defense, Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican and anti-arms control ideologue whose motto is "peace through strength, not peace through paper" - asserts that "The Rumsfeld Report was the main reason the debate was gradually turned around and the administration turned around."

In essence, the Rumsfeld panel gave Star Wars boosters in Congress the quasi-official endorsement they needed to push the program forward.

Gauging the threat

The missile threat facing the United States has been exaggerated, to say the least.

North Korea, the main impetus behind the current push for an NMD system, has agreed to a moratorium of new missile tests, has begun rapprochement with South Korea and has expressed a willingness to cap its nuclear and ballistic missile programs (exports and production) as part of a framework agreement with the United States.

U.S. intelligence analyst Robert Walpole has pointed out in testimony before Congress that a ballistic missile is the least likely way a foreign nation would choose to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to U.S. territory, because ballistic missiles have a "return address" that would allow swift and devastating retaliation by the United States.

Beyond the unrealistic threat assessment, few remarked at the time that the panel's chair was far from an objective analyst on this subject, given his parallel role as a card-carrying member of the missile defense lobby.

Rumsfeld is listed as an "informal adviser and faithful supporter" of the Center for Security Policy in its annual report. The Center for Security Policy, founded and directed by former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, is a highly partisan advocacy organization that serves as the de facto center of the Star Wars lobby.

The Center's 100-member advisory board is a virtual Star Wars hall of fame, including such luminaries as the original Star Warriors such as Edward Teller and former Reagan science adviser George Keyworth.

The board also includes heads of like-minded, right-wing foundations such as William J. Bennett of Empower America and Henry Cooper of High Frontier. Rounding out the board are almost two-dozen former and current members of Congress, retired military and defense officials and, at last count, six defense industry CEOs from Boeing and Lockheed. Additionally, unlike most think tanks that work on national security issues, the Center for Security Policy receives roughly 20 percent of its annual revenues from corporate sponsors, including generous contributions from top missile defense corporations.

Rumsfeld also serves on the board of Empower America, which ran misleading, pro-Star Wars radio ads against incumbent Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, in the 1998 congressional elections, just a few months after Rumsfeld's allegedly non-partisan analysis of the Third World missile threat was released.

Lest anyone overlook Rumsfeld's close ties to the missile defense lobby, he was awarded the Center for Security Policy's Keeper of the Flame award in 1998 at a gala dinner attended by retired military officers, conservative political and foundation leaders, and representatives of missile defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin. In addition to Rumsfeld, past recipients of the Keeper of the Flame award include Sen. Kyl, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Rep. Christopher Cox, a California Republican.

Industry's backing

The work of Rumsfeld and his associates has been backed up and supported every step of the way by the arms industry, which has been spending heavily in recent years on candidates and lobbyists who will promote its agenda in Washington. Indeed, the "unwarranted influence" of the military industrial complex, which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about 40 years ago in his farewell address, is still painfully evident today.

During the past decade, the major weapons makers have made generous campaign contributions to key members of Congress and invested tens of millions of dollars in their already formidable Washington lobbying operations. Weapons industry Political Action Committees' contributions have favored Republicans over Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin.

Since 1997, the top four missile defense contractors have doled out more than $4 million in PAC contributions and almost $3 million in soft money. But this lavish giving pales in comparison with what these firms spend on lobbying each year: an estimated $18 million.

Within weeks of taking office, Bush will have to decide on whether the United States should move forward with the initial construction of a radar station in Alaska for the limited NMD system currently being tested.

Given his recent record and long-standing affiliations, Rumsfeld is every bit as ideological on the missile defense issue as Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft is on the issue of abortion.

His appointment is great news for the motley collection of weapons makers and conservative ideologues who make up the Star Wars lobby. But unless he distances himself from the rigid, pro-Star Wars views of his cohorts and makes a truly objective assessment of the ballistic missile threat to our nation, he could end up spending tens of billions of our tax dollars on a costly, unproven and provocative missile defense initiative that could spark a new nuclear arms race.

During his recent confirmation hearing, Rumsfeld held his cards close to the vest, indicating that he endorsed President-elect Bush's pledge to field a national missile defense as soon as possible. But he refused to discuss the design or cost of the administration's version of missile defense. He also made a troubling reference to the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 as "ancient history," suggesting that he may share the hard-line conservative view that the United States should jettison this valuable agreement, which most nations of the world view as a cornerstone of strategic stability.

The only silver lining would be if Rumsfeld were to make a thorough and objective study of the problem and abandon the myth of missile defense in favor of nuclear arms reductions.

Just as former President Richard M. Nixon was better situated politically to normalize U.S. relations with communist China, perhaps Star Warrior extraordinaire Donald Rumsfeld can be the one to finally and firmly say no to the Star Wars lobby. But don't count on that optimistic scenario unless we begin a full, vocal and well-informed national debate on this critical issue, immediately.

William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca are the President's Fellow and Senior Research Associate, re spectively, at the World Policy Institute at New School University.

Copyright © 2000 by The Baltimore Sun

###