George Bush, Space Cowboy

"Just as China did, the U.S. was demonstrating its anti-satellite capability, stepping briefly across a dangerous threshold, undercutting American and international criticism of China and threatening an arms race in space. . . .

"Washington should not be surprised when Beijing exploits this launch to justify its own burgeoning anti-satellite program. The U.S. action will give China, Russia and others an excuse to develop and test comparable capabilities, claiming that they too need to keep their populations safe from falling satellites. China may well feel freed from the pledge it made last year not to test its anti-satellite weapons again."

The USA Today editorial board writes that the destruction of the satellite "might be just what the White House says it is: a well-intentioned effort to destroy a school bus-sized contraption carrying toxic fuel before it can threaten lives on the ground.

"But because the administration seemed willing as recently as last month to let the satellite plummet to Earth unmolested -- figuring that much of it would be burned up in a fiery re-entry and the rest would have little chance of hitting anyone on the planet's vast expanse -- it's not surprising that the shoot-down plan is generating suspicion. Critics such as Russia's Defense Ministry say the real motive is to test U.S. space weapons capability."

The destruction of the satellite also creates great PR for Bush's otherwise largely unsuccesful and hugely expensive missile defense program.

Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic programs at the Federation of American Scientists, was Live Online on washingtonpost.com yesterday. "I can't read minds so I don't know motivations but I suspect that one motivation is that this is a great political boost to the missile defense system," he wrote. "People don't make much distinction between missile defense and anti-satellite intercepts. So here is this 'grave' danger from space, we fire a rocket at it and, poof, the danger is gone. Aren't you glad we spent the billions of dollars on that missile defense system? . . .

"I believe that a reasonably skeptical person can be forgiven that there is more going on here than the administration claims."

As for the risks, Oelrich wrote: "To put this in some perspective, the US produces 36,000,000 pounds of hydrazine every year. The world 130,000,000 pounds. This is transported around the country in trucks and on trains. At any given moment FAR more hydrazine is being shipped on the country's highways, through towns and cities and inhabited areas, than the amount on this satellite. (And far more dangerous materials, like chlorine.) So I do not buy the public safety argument. If the administration were concerned about public safety, they would take the millions of dollars spent on this intercept and spend it on traffic lights at a dangerous intersection or on vaccines for children."

Gail Collins writes in her New York Times opinion colum today: "Small, paranoid minds wondered if the government was not being completely forthright about its motives. The weapons the military mobilized to do the shooting are part of the missile defense system. Some people think the whole poison-gas story is just an excuse to give the Pentagon a chance to test its hardware.

"This is only conceivable if you can imagine that the people who are in charge of intelligence-gathering might attempt to mislead the American public."

Militarizing Africa?

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush on Wednesday tried to calm deep fears about expanding U.S. strategic ambitions in Africa, dismissing speculation that he wants to build military bases on the continent as just 'baloney.'

"Bush ordered the Pentagon to set up a new Africa Command last year but left its headquarters in Germany amid anxiety over an expanding military presence in Africa. The issue has shadowed Bush's six-day journey across the continent, as demonstrated by a Tanzanian newspaper headline declaring that he came to 'militarize' Africa. . . .