The administration also has canceled several "future capability" programs due to technical challenges, affordability and a belief that these are too futuristic. It emphasizes a shift from midcourse and boost-phase missile defense to "ascent-phase" capabilities, without much explanation of what "ascent-phase" includes.
Republicans and hawkish Democrats are trying to restore some funding, but strident liberal opposition might make that impossible.
Republicans support increased funding for theater missile defense to protect our troops and allies from shorter-range missiles. Yet with a $1.2 billion funding cut, they face trading national missile defense for more theater missile defense.
The Obama White House and congressional Democrats would argue that a short-range "theater" missile defense system is sufficient to counter current threats. Using their rationale, the United States would not need a multi-layered, comprehensive missile defense system because rogue nations do not have the capability to hit our homeland.
However, this approach is dangerous and naive. North Korea and Iran both recently tested multi-stage, long-range ballistic missiles under the guise of peaceful "space" programs.
With those nations aggressively developing more capable ballistic missiles, it is unwise for the United States to unilaterally stop investing in what Democrats would describe as "longer-term" capabilities.
Democrats, however, push back on North Korea's rhetoric. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, recently dismissed the threat, telling Politico: "It is North Korea, after all."
Sometimes it is just hard to tell the difference between arrogance and ignorance.
Supporting the ideals behind war is never patriotic -- just politics. Supporting national defense is patriotic -- and should never be political.