I have already stated my support for President Obama’s changes to the missile strategy in Eastern Europe, however with that said Kejda Gjermani writing for Commentary magazine lays out a great time-line of events of the missile defense deal along with making this valid point criticizing the change in strategy:

International relations are not fickle variables to be reset sporadically at the push of a button. Continuity in foreign policy serves as a stable platform for the undertaking of any long-term initiatives with other countries. If U.S. presidents started rebooting relations between America and the rest of the world whenever they assumed office, all diplomatic frameworks would break down, as chronic uncertainty undermines international cooperation. America’s democratic allies are already biased against long-term thinking because the political fates of their leaders depend on the voters’ capricious approval. They might adapt to this climate of uncertainty by shortening their planning horizons even more, requiring immediate reciprocity to any accommodation of our interests. The reaction in Eastern Europe to America’s broken commitment suggests that the region is already contemplating a strategic shift in such a direction. (…….)

In justifying the abrogation of the missile-defense treaties so casually, Obama cannot but do his own legacy a disservice. No American president gets to have the last word. For the blank slate he has cleared for himself at his predecessor’s expense, Obama will pay by seeing future presidents undo his work on a whim. And as a result of his revisionist stunt, neither this country’s friends nor its enemies can know what to expect from the United States.  [Commentary]

The breaking of agreements by new administrations in a valid point, however it isn’t like the Obama administration has totally scrapped the plan.  Instead of installing GBI’s in Poland the administration plans on installing ground-based SM-3′s, which per missile would be $60 million dollars cheaper than GBI’s and are a proven capability.  The administration has also tasked PATRIOT missile units to rotate to Poland to expand defense cooperation with the country, granted the unit really has no tactical reason for being there.

The Czech Republic on the otherhand will not have a 360 degree radar installed that would radiate over Russia, but instead possibly a Foward Based X-band radar.  The FBX radar is a directional radar that is used for the THAAD missile system that also has two lone forward based radars in Japan and Israel to detect missile launches from North Korea and Iran.  This radar since it is directional would not radiate over Russia.

So Gjermani has made some valid points about scrapping agreements from prior administrations, but I don’t think the Eastern European missile defense issue qualifies as “scrapping”; instead I think “modified” is a better term.  Plus it was modified into a better agreement where the US isn’t fielding a system that isn’t proven to work against a ICBM threat from Iran that doesn’t exist.  The SM-3, THAAD, and PATRIOT systems can shoot down any current threat from Iran and it is more cost effective and flexible because these systems are deployable because they do not require fixed locations.

President’s should be constrained from modifying agreements from past administrations that better fit with current US strategic interests.  The Eastern European missile defense issue is a perfect example of this.