Conservatives absolutely love European missile defense. Why? My theory is that it brings them to a happy place, one full of stuffed dolls of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and plastic Millennium Falcons. Yup, the European missile defense program was a vestige of the Cold War, when conservatives’ grip on national security strategy was tightest. Why else would the Bush administration have worked so hard to ensure that we had invested so much in the system that it’d be dang near impossible to back away?

So you’ll forgive them if they’re not exactly ready to give it up. Take House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example:

The Administration’s misguided action will cause our eastern European allies to question our commitment to their people and security, while heightening concerns in Israel. The European deployment is the only system that can protect both the U.S. and Europe against the common threat of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

Doesn’t that sound more like 1989 than 2009? Yet Cantor’s statement is just the latest example of how out-of-touch Republicans are with America’s national security needs in the 21st century.

I know it can be counter-intuitive to claim that we’re making America stronger by removing a missile shield. At first glance, it doesn’t make obvious sense.

But it’s true: we’re actually improving our missile defense capabilities. Instead of the land-based, costly, behind-schedule, outmoded system in Europe, the Obama administration is set to emphasize a more accurate, cheaper, near-term, next wave sea-based system. When comparing the two, think of the choice this way:

If you were going to buy a security system for your house, would you rather spend $1000 on a system that catches 50 percent of the criminals and doesn’t start working until next year, or one that costs $800, catches 80 percent, and starts working next week?

The choice seems easy, right? Though greatly simplified, it isn’t terribly different from the obvious choice the White House just made upon the unanimous recommendation from the Defense establishment.

Diplomatically, the choice is also a win-win for a stronger American security. The conservative cabal doesn’t think so, excessively worrying about upsetting our Eastern European allies while groveling to Russia. Here’s House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH):

“Scrapping the US missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more than empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe,”

Or does it? While it’s true that there may be some bruised egos in Warsaw and Prague, our relationships with our Eastern European allies are steadfast. How can I be so confident? Look no further that the NATO Treaty’s Article 5, which states that an attack on any one NATO member is an attack on all. That’s the very same article that NATO invoked in the wake of 9/11.

Even better, guess who’s a member of NATO? If you said Poland and the Czech Republic, then DING DING, Vanna has some lovely gifts for you.

Furthermore, moving missile defense to a sea-based element removes an unnecessary thorn in the side of US-Russia relations, one that endears Russia to our efforts when negotiating with Iran. Russia’s help isn’t guaranteed, but if it’s possible to generate Russian pressure on Iran while deploying a technically better missile defense system, then it’s a no-brainer.

Just like this entire situation: Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that the Cold War is over and America’s national security needs in 2009 are very different from just twenty years ago.

Crossposted from AllOurMight.com

A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 51 percent of Americans believe that the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits. It’s a staggering number. Once you account for statical error, it’s safe to say that about half of this country has forgotten the reverberating costs of September 11, 2001.

First, it is vital that we remember why we’re in Afghanistan. While President Bush had a grand vision of bringing democracy and prosperity to the Afghan people, President Obama realized that Bush’s vision was impossible to achieve. President Obama has redefined America’s goals in the region, saying during the 2008 campaign that, “Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region.” Once he became Commander-in-Chief, Obama reiterated that approach:

I can articulate some very clear, minimal goals in Afghanistan, and that is that we make sure that it’s not a safe haven for al-Qaida, they are not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened on 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest.

In other words, our mission in Afghanistan is clearly linked to preventing the re-occurrence of a similar, massive terrorist attack.

With that in mind, it’s worth reviewing the costs of the 2001 attacks to remind the American people why we’re trying to prevent another one.

First, a few numbers:

• 2,973 individuals were killed in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA.
• In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that 146,000 jobs were lost.
• In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that the total economic impact on the city was $94.8 billion, including personal wealth, lost wages, rebuilding costs, and others.
• In the three days after the attack, the Federal Reserve injected $300 billion into the economy in various forms. They were actions that were “essential to cushioning the terrorist effects on the economy.”
• The Congressional Research Service found long-term negative economic effects as per capital real income growth would slow.

It’s well-and-good to break down the attacks’ effect in cold, stark numbers, but it’s also worth remembering the price we paid in other ways:

• Recall the emotional trauma you – as someone possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away with no direct connection to the tragedy – experienced to understand what happened and why?
• Remember how our key aspects of infrastructure were blocked? And that life didn’t return to normal for months?
• Remember how the Bush administration undertook highly questionable security measures like torture in the name of national security?
• Remember how the Bush administration quickly turned a moment that should have sponsored national unity into one that leaned heavily on the politics of fear?
• Or remember how the Bush administration pivoted off military action in Afghanistan to gin up ultimately dubious charges against Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction?

This is not an exhaustive list. Furthermore, I’m hardly saying that all of these outcomes will come to pass should another massive terrorist attack occur on American soil. For one, I believe President Obama owes his election to presenting a decidedly different version of national security from President Bush.

When Americans say that they don’t believe the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits, I’d say this: Remember that we’re in Afghanistan to prevent another massive terrorist attack, and that the costs of those attacks were enormous to Americans’ lives, our economy, and our national identity.

Crossposted to AllOurMight.com