Outside the Beltway

Dempsey on Missile Defense, Arrows, and Archers

James Joyner
7

Comments

Kingston Reif points to this response from Marty Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Senator Ted Cruz on why the Pentagon is cutting $500 million from the missile defense budget:

I would also say, you know, ballistic missile defense is a(n) important investment.

It’s also — it can get to be extraordinarily expensive.

And so one of the things we have to do is balance defense and offense. I often use the phrase that at some point you have to stop worrying about the arrow and start worrying about the archer. And I would suggest to our potential adversaries that we haven’t forgotten that we also have capabilities to deal with the archer.

It’s a lot cheaper to target the archer than the arrow. And we already have the ability to do that.

Categories

Tags

, , ,

7 responses to “Dempsey on Missile Defense, Arrows, and Archers”

  1. DC Loser Avatar
    DC Loser

    It’s stupid to put most of your money on defense. Problem with missile defense is that the offensive systems are usually a lot cheaper than the defensive systems (e.g., Iron Dome vs. those cheap rockets the Hamas guys fly). You can quickly bankrupt yourself by trying to defend against every incoming missile.

  2. JKB Avatar
    JKB

    And I would suggest to our potential adversaries that we haven’t forgotten that we also have capabilities to deal with the archer.

    True we have capabilities to deal with the archer but seldom the political stomach. Look at Israel, they could end the Hamas rocket attacks with a simple troop movement. However, every two-bit pantiwaist in the US and Europe would get their panties in a bunch. So they are consigned to dealing with the arrows.

    We dealt with the “archers” in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (yes, we also took out the funders, protectors and facilitators) but now all you hear is whining and condemnation from those see advantage in being anti-war….now. Taking out the archers is messy, bloody, and many soon create the Archer’s Rights Coalition.

    So yes, we have the capability to deal with the archers but seldom, as a nation, the will….at least long term.

  3. JKB Avatar
    JKB

    Oh, and let’s not forget with today’s warheads, you have to be willing to preemptively take out the archers.

  4. Jenos Idanian #13 Avatar
    Jenos Idanian #13

    This thought lends itself quite readily to both gun control and terrorism. In both cases, there’s a hell of a lot of attention focused on the “arrows,” and little to none on the “archers.”

  5. Barry Avatar
    Barry

    @JKB: “We dealt with the “archers” in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (yes, we also took out the funders, protectors and facilitators) but now all you hear is whining and condemnation from those see advantage in being anti-war….now. Taking out the archers is messy, bloody, and many soon create the Archer’s Rights Coalition. ”

    Well, no, but who cares about facts?

  6. James Joyner Avatar
    James Joyner

    @JKB: That just doesn’t comport with reality. The objections to the war in Afghanistan are over the nation-building, not the targeting of al Qaeda. Virtually no one objects to our killing terrorists.

  7. wr Avatar
    wr

    @JKB: Oh, lookie, JKB is advocating genocide again.

Latest Posts