I really don't consider myself much of a historian, but recent actions taken by the Bush administration regarding our highly touted (and useless) missile defense plan had me digging deep into my brain to search for a historical similarity. I can only hope that everyone has heard the age-old clich?? that claims history will repeat itself, because it portrays a very ominous picture of our country's future.
After World War I, the French spent an astounding amount of time and money building the Maginot Line that they thought would be an impenetrable defense system. This seemed like a good idea at the time since WWI was fought mainly in the trenches, but it is well documented that this defense plan turned out to be a miserable failure.
Unfortunately, there appears to be many similarities between the actions taken to build the Maginot Line and our country's current development of a missile defense shield. WWI was dominated by trench warfare, which would turn out to be an obsolete tactic in the next world war. For this country, WWII essentially ended when we dropped the two nuclear bombs, and here we are now preparing to defend ourselves against such an attack.
In a time of mounting tensions between the United States and its enemies, I can't help but wonder if we are pursuing a system of defense that will prove to be utterly useless, even if the shield works as designed (which it doesn't). With internal acts of terror becoming an increasingly likely scenario for American casualties, is a multi-billion dollar missile shield really going to alleviate our concerns?
If you look at all the terrorist action within the United States in the recent past, none of it involved missiles, so why do we keep blindly pursuing a system that is aimed at stopping an external missile threat? The events of Sept. 11 should have made us realize that our enemies could already be in our country, and knowing that should have shifted our country's focus to preventing internal disasters, yet we are certainly not being proactive in that regard.
Referring once again to post-WWI history, France spent billions of francs to build its wall of defense, but its logic was faulty. While I won't go into any more historical details, the French ignored potential flaws in their system, which the Germans ultimately took advantage of and quickly moved around the Maginot Line.
In a surprisingly similar modern scenario, it appears that our country's current administration is content to keep throwing away billions of dollars on our intricate plan, even though it doesn't work. Not only has the missile shield failed numerous tests, but some MIT physicists developed multiple ways that any country with nuclear capability could still drop a bomb on our soil.
I am actually starting to believe that our president and his administration are so obsessed with making this country impenetrable, which the missile shield won't do, that they are becoming blind to basic reasoning that says we are actually quite vulnerable. Isn't anyone else worried that we might be focusing on the wrong channels of destruction?
So as the tactics of war continue to evolve due to technological advances, it seems our country is content to focus on past methods of defense instead of anticipating future strategies that may prove to be more useful. History has already proven that this is a dangerous trap to fall into, and the magnitude of today's military technology puts our nation at unprecedented risk.
All of these historical facts and frightening similarities to our present situation bring us face to face with a startling possibility that we may not be prepared for. While our country prepares for a missile threat, it is very likely that our enemies are planning something entirely different. Given our current direction in defense development, and the fact that war seems unavoidable in our near future, we can only hope that this campaign won't resemble anything from the past.
