I don't understand the point of exercising, which I'm told has
something to do with health and wearing Umbros. Yet, as mystified
as I am when watching Sweatin' to the Oldies 3 on VHS, I
am not as confused as Barack Obama is when talking about missile
defense, a topic much easier to comprehend than Richard Simmons.
It's also more controversial.

President Obama knows that missile defense is a touchy subject
internationally, as underscored by Russia's protests against the
planned deployment of anti-missile systems in Poland and the
Czech Republic. Within hours of Obama's election, Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to deploy missiles of his
own in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland, if America goes ahead
with its plans.

The administration, wavering, says it needs time to think it
over, which is consistent with the "wait and see" approach that
Obama espoused during the campaign. He said he will deploy
missile defense (a) "only when the system works" and (b) only if
it's "pragmatic and cost-effective." That sounds sensible enough.

Waiting and seeing are fine things to do, but a problem arises
when the person doing the waiting keeps his eyes closed, as any
restaurant manager will tell you. Obama is willing to wait on
missile defense, but he refuses to look at the evidence in its
favor. And so there is little reason to think he will backpedal
on his campaign pledge to "cut
investments in unproven missile defense systems."

Though far from flawless, missile defense is even further from
"unproven." In December, the Missile Defense Agency successfully
shot down a long-range ballistic missile that was launched in
Alaska (roughly 3,000 kilometers away), in what was "the largest,
most complex test we have ever done,"
according to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, the director of MDA.
It was the 37th successful "hit-to-kill" intercept out of 47
attempts since 2001, proving that the shield is mightier than the
sword (four times out of five).

Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, MDA's previous director, said,
"Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a
bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet."

Which is simply awesome. Even better, it's affordable. The system
proposed for Eastern Europe is expected to cost $4 billion over
seven years, a sum the Congressional Research Service called "relatively
small in U.S. defense budget terms." In terms of Obama's domestic
budget, it's microscopic.

Obama, who promised to increase foreign aid and to "treat allies
with respect," should be absolutely giddy about missile defense.
Its purpose, after all, is to prevent Europeans from getting
blown up by ballistic missiles. That certainly sounds like aiding
foreigners.

At least it does to our NATO allies, the same ones Obama claims
to care about. On December 3, every last one of them signed a
statement
saying that missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic
would make a "substantial contribution" to keeping them alive,
roughly speaking.

Why in the world is Obama dithering?

His queasiness stems from a simple fact: He really wants to be
popular, a goal he openly admits. He aspires
to be "respected and admired abroad," seeing himself as the
successor to Bono rather than to Bush.

How inconvenient to face controversy so soon. Missile defense is
an unequivocal symbol of American supremacy, something that
former superpowers tend to resent. Installing it in Eastern
Europe, as Obama knows, would infuriate an already irritable
Russia, and making Russians mad doesn't make them like you.

Obama, a sensitive guy by nature, is doing his best not to
discomfit the Russians, whose inferiority complex is matched only
by their paranoia. (A poll in 2007 found
that 43% of Russians believe the U.S. seeks "the total
destruction of Russia.") The essential point to keep in mind,
however, is that this "controversial" weaponry -- a radar in the
Czech Republic and ten missile interceptors in Poland -- is
designed to hurt no one. The only thing it would hurt is Russia's
feelings.

What disturbs Russia is not the anti-missile missiles themselves
-- which everyone knows are no threat to its 850 ICBM's -- but
the encroachment of American power into its former satellites.
The Russians call it encirclement, but a better word is
embarrassment.

Russia used to dominate Eastern Europe. Now, with NATO and
American weapons systems moving eastward, the entire region
(minus Belarus) has turned its back on Moscow, and Mother Russia
is sick and tired of nobody looking at her.

Now, all of the sudden, here comes Obama, ready to stare and gaze
indefinitely. It's all part of his wait-and-see strategy. "Let's
talk it out" is his operating philosophy.

Like Obama, Vladimir and Dmitry want to talk until their mouths
fall off, and why wouldn't they? When everyone talks, no one
decides. An international talkathon, precisely because it will
resolve nothing, serves Russia's interests as well as Obama's,
ridding him of an awkward decision: protect American interests or
flatter foreigners?

It's sweet that Obama wants to befriend nation-states, but
geopolitics is not junior high, sadly, and chitchat isn't always
cheap. The more time we spend blabbering for its own sake, the
more time Iran has to continue its nuclear "research," right
before it starts studying for its AP Biology exam. According to
an IAEA report released last week, Iran possesses 460 more pounds
of uranium than previously thought, giving it "enough atoms,"
per
a senior U.N. official, to build at least one nuclear bomb. How
comforting, then, that we will continue assuming the best
intentions and worst capabilities of trigger-happy psychopaths.

As long as Iran keeps researching its way into the nuclear club,
shouldn't America "research" its missile defenses over to Poland
and the Czech Republic? Given who we're dealing with, it only
makes sense to plan ahead for worst-case scenarios. If you knew
O.J. Simpson had it out for you and was on his way to the safe
where he keeps his revolver, wouldn't you take some precautions
(such as running away or buying a bulletproof vest) rather than
just trying to talk him out of owning a firearm?

To be sure, preemptive self-defense may offend the "international
community," which raises an important question: So what? No one
said being the world's policeman meant keeping 6.7 billion people
in a good mood. That's what prescription drugs are for.

Prozac, however, is useless against ballistic missiles, and
missile defense is quite naturally the best defense against them.
The logistics are complex, but the issue isn't. Instead of
agonizing over the impact it will have on his global reputation,
President Obama should approach missile defense with the same
attitude I take to physical fitness: Don't sweat it.