I am concerned, however, that our geographic divide is increasingly becoming a functional one. Our perspectives are diverging, and it is my hope that the discussions that follow will help to bridge these gaps. The issue of National Missile Defense is the most compelling and immediate source of division. But the institutionalization of a situation where the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars to defend against terrorism, armed invasion, and air strikes by manned aircraft, yet leaves us vulnerable to missiles armed with nuclear warheads, is simply no longer tenable. Deterrence against missile strikes can fail.
Defeated adversaries do strike out irrationally with the most destructive means at their disposal.
No American President or Congress can leave our country vulnerable to such a threat and still meet our constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense. A National Missile Defense system is not being considered in a vacuum. Integral to our approach to the problem of defending against missiles is the development of theater systems designed to protect not just U.S. troops forward deployed, but the allies and friends they are there to help protect. On another issue, the establishment of a European Union Rapid Reaction Force outside the integrated decision making structure of NATO is a worrisome response to a legitimate concern. The new Administration of President Bush is not isolationist, and will not act cavalierly with regard to ongoing regional contingencies.