By now, most Americans know the president does not support strong and comprehensive missile defense. He sung a different tune during the campaign, of course, but now that he’s in office, he’s revealed his true intentions. From reneging on deals to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic to proposing to cut $1.4 billion from the missile defense budget, it’s clear that he has other interests in mind.

Carafano says this about the proposed budget:

“The Pentagon budget the president sent to the Hill would have slashed production and deployment of U.S.-based missile interceptors by about a third. The cuts would have come from missile defenses that are already tested, proven and, for the most part, paid for. So much for the promise of “pragmatic and cost-effective” defenses.

“Case in point: The Obama budget included absolutely zero funds to replace ‘Missile Field One.’ This Alaskan missile field, now part of the missile defense shield, includes the first silos built to test the long-range interceptors.

“The silos were not built for long-term use. They now need to be replaced. But the Obama budget request zeroed out that funding … even though the budget still retained an already paid-for fleet of interceptors…Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish!”

Carafano says this about missile defense shields in Central Europe:

“The White House also started backpedaling from the previous administration’s commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland that would protect both our allies and our troops in Europe from the growing Iranian missile threat. The administration tried to justify the delay by saying it wanted to look at “pragmatic and cost-effective” alternatives.

“One alternative it says it wants to consider is a mobile, land-based system. Cool, huh? Except that such a system exists nowhere other than on some PowerPoint slides. So much for ‘pragmatic.’”

It seems Obama is trying to undo what George Bush put in place without a clear plan. In other words, he’s being contrary for the sake of being contrary, not practical. Carafano discusses other programs Obama proposes to cut, including the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. Read the full column.

The Obama administration proposes to cut $1.4 billion from the missile defense budget. The report’s author notes the administration’s proposal to reduce ground-based interceptors from 44 to 30 with no plans to replace or replenish the program. The budget for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system would be reduced by 35 percent, and the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense program would see cuts for the next fiscal year.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) program, which had its first successful in-flight test this week, would see a $214 million decrease if the budget is passed. Perhaps the success of the ABL will prompt the president to commission another ABL aircraft.

The administration proposes to cancel the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs.

See the Center’s 50-page report (PDF) for analyses of how these budget cuts affect our national defense.

According to the alert, President Barack Obama intends to shift away from national missile defense to theater missile defense. Earlier this month, we noted that the Obama administration planned to shift funds away from weapons and research for future conflicts and focus on weapons needed for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NDAA passed the House and Senate in committee, and lawmakers are introducing amendments to restore funding.

The MDAA notes that missile defense cuts would cancel the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Airborne Laser. Visit the MDAA site for more information.