There was some heartburn in the comments about the heat-to-light ratio in Jeff’s post on the Washington Post and the Joint Threat Assessment on Iran. So let’s see if we can’t address the same topic from a slightly different angle.
Getting dismissive reactions from senior government officials is nothing new for outside experts who have examined big-ticket missile defense systems. After all, GMD isn’t just some narrowly technical matter. It’s also a political program, not fully subject to the normal rules of defense acquisition. It’s understandably close to the hearts of those who have made careers around it and sincerely believe in the vision of national security policy that it represents.
But one would hope that the EastWest Institute’s U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment, which was very critical of the Euro-GMD (or “third site”) proposal, could get a more respectful hearing in an independent newspaper. To my knowledge, the news side of the Post hasn’t reported on it, so a It certainly deserved better from the editorial page than only a bristling, blistering op-ed by two former officials is the only coverage that the paper has provided so far. The JTA report is not beyond criticism, but it’s a serious contribution, so this is unfortunate.
If the Post has not given readers a balanced or informative presentation, neither have many others. In general, there hasn’t been much coverage anywhere of questions raised about the third site’s viability, or much about the Ballistic Missile Defense Review being conducted by the Administration, which seems like the subtext and the target of the op-ed. And that’s really a shame.
Update. I stand highly corrected! (Thanks, Travis.) There was straight news coverage after all. My apologies to the news side of the house. I will refrain from lame excuses about the unreliable search engine at wpost.com, since I should have seen this in the first place. Comments on the op-ed stand.