Published on September 22, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

It's time for the U.S to give peace a chance.

"what the hell are talking about boy?? Don't you know those terrorists are gonna kick down our doors and chop our heads off at any minute!?!?"

Without expounding further on the fact that you have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident or a heart attack from eating too much high calorie junk than you do from getting killed in a terrorist attack, let's look at the current U.S situation on the world stage. Namely, let's look at all the current ongoing and potential conflicts looming on the horizon:

1) Russia- there's been tough talk about reigning Russia in. However, since they are a net exporter of energy to Europe and could shut off the spigot if they wanted, it's highly doubtful that European members of NATO will commit to anything more than tough talk. This means if the U.S truly decides to do something about Russia bullying it's new-found Eastern European allies, it'll probably have to carry out any military action largely on it's own.

2) China- keep growing their military and are in direct competition with U.S interests for energy and resources across the globe. While it's debatable if they'd ever get into a shooting war directly with the U.S, they definitely won't be helping and have the capacity to make life miserable without firing a single shot. All they have to do is unload their massive stock of U.S Treasury's that they've purchased and suddenly the value of the U.S dollar will plummet. Additionally, all they have to do is wait for the U.S to get itself committed to too many military actions across the globe and they can then step in and take what they want in other theatres (they could decide to pay a visit to Taiwan, for example)

3) Afghanistan- since "winning" the war in Afghanistan almost 7 years ago the Taliban have demonstrated their complete incompetency and desperation by conducting increasingly succesful attacks against coalition forces in country. So much so that the U.S is transferring another combat brigade and there are calls for as many as 4 more  brigades needed. Considering the length and nature of this conflict, and the fact that the insurgents in country are very used to this kind of long, drawn out warfare, this definitely isn't going to be over anytime soon.

4) Pakistan- heavily linked to the situation in Afghanistan thanks to their long porous border and tribes that inhabit the area. However, Pakistan's 600,000 strong army has been issued orders to open fire on any U.S forces that cross the border without first requesting and being granted entrance. On sunday Pakistani forces fired on 2 U.S helicopters forcing them to turn back. There are rumours of several other engagements previous to this which have been officially denied. Also, there are serious concerns about the nation's internal stability. Several analysts have raised the warning bell that there is a good chance within a year or two a civil war in Pakistan could erupt, best case scenario they would be temporarily removed as an "ally" of the U.S until the conflict is over, worst case scenario after such a civil war the country ends up being in the hands of staunchly anti-U.S folks. Regardless, another area that could require significant U.S military commitments and support in the near future.

5) Iran- Always a thorn in the side of the U.S. Rumours have it that Israel could be planning it's own military action if the U.S gets cold feet considering all it's other current miltary commitments. In theory, such an action would be along the same lines as the bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq only on a much, much larger scale involving a massive air campaign aimed at not only removing Iran's nuclear capabilities but also much of it's conventional military capacity as well. Any military action here whether by the U.S or it's allies is a big question as to how bad the fallout would be. If even only a fraction of Iran's rockets survive they'll be able to shut down shipping out of the straits of Hormuz and strike multiple U.S bases and installations in the middleast, which they've stated they will do if they are attacked. Also Iran, geopolitically is far more aligned to the Russia and China camp than it is to the U.S/European camp. Further significant rammifications could involve military confrontation with Russia considering the current strained relations with the U.S.

6) Iraq- One spot of 'good' news for the U.S is that things have calmed down considerably in comparison to the attacks and casualties incurred previously. However, there are still approximately 130,000 U.S forces in country and even after the full drawdown there will be a permanent U.S presence of at least 20,000-30,000 troops in several mega-bases across the country. While things look to have settled down somewhat, any military action in Iran could spark any number of possible uprisings by the Shia majority, and there is always the possibility that sectarian fighting could break out at some point in the future between the armed Sunni and Shia factions that are currently playing nice. Also, keep in mind that several years of troop rotations through Iraq mean that the units coming back require time in country for R&R, re-organization, repair and replace equipment, re-training etc. So it's not like the U.S will instantly gain a surplus of 130,000 troops that can be re-committed instantly the moment they return home. In short, the army needs a breather!

7) Saudi Arabia. This one has always been a big question mark. While they are officially a U.S ally, the Saudi Royal family rules through an iron grip on the country. Think the Taliban was mean to women? They've got nothing on the Saudi religious police who can make you disapear for so much as looking in the wrong direction. Additionally, many terrorist groups and leaders have roots and funding from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and yet the U.S is tied to the country at the hip, both politically and economically. There has also been much conjecture that Saudi could face a situation similar to the revolution that ousted the Shah of Iran in the 70's. If things go bad, the Saudis could be calling the U.S for military support and assistance. Worst case they could end up a direct enemy if the Royal family is overthrown.

8) Venezuela, Bolivia and Columbia. Venezuela and Bolivia are staunchly anti-U.S and have made overtures for military co-operation with Russia and Iran. Also, both nations have expelled the official U.S diplomats from their countries. Columbia is staunchly pro-U.S and recieves a massive amount of military aid, in the form of weapons, training, advisers and intelligence. If things erupt here, Columbia could be calling on assistance from the U.S, or we could be looking at a direct invasion (forced regime change) similar to what the U.S did to Panama in order to oust Noriega.

9) Also let's not forget North Korea, don't be fooled by the official word that they've changed their tune. Kim Jong Il is an unpredictable man to say the least and could definitely choose to monopolize on the situation if a major conflict breaks out elsewhere.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Any others you can think of feel free to chime in! I didn't include Africa but you definitely can't discount any number of possible actions there as well. The Congo, Somalia, Sudan, the list of possibilities is long and would undoubtedly be very bloody.

In short, the U.S has too many potential wars it's facing. Instead of trying to take on multiple conflicts in far-flung theatres simultaneously, it might be a good time to extend the olive branch in other areas and focus on one thing at a time!

Securing Russia and China as allies would be a good first step (and also probably the hardest to accomplish) as this would remove your two largest potential enemies. Will it happen? Not very likely.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 22, 2008

Wow.

 

on Sep 22, 2008

It's interesting how the US seems to be the only one with the problems according to you yet none of those countries you mentioned have only us as a problem. Wow, the world against the US and somehow we are still the super power, go figure.

on Sep 22, 2008

Suprising to see how liberals become such war mongers.  Like Brad said - WOW.

on Sep 23, 2008

I'll kick the world's ass...bring it on!

~Zoo

on Sep 23, 2008

It's interesting how the US seems to be the only one with the problems according to you yet none of those countries you mentioned have only us as a problem.

I never said the U.S was the only country with problems. However, the U.S is in the unique position of having almost 800 military bases and installations outside of your own borders across the globe, and is currently involved in several major military commitments.

All I offer is the objective opinion that quite frankly you have too many potential enemies and not enough allies at this point-

At present, the U.S has (ballpark) of 360,000 active duty military personnel deployed in over 150 countries around the planet.

At the same time, the U.S is talking tough about Russia, working to expand NATO (and military commitments and resources across eastern europe) trying to position itself for a future conflict with China, as well as fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan which could and may very well spill over into Pakistan. As well is the ongoing security situation in Iraq (Petraeus doesn't want any more troop reductions there for some time) Not too mention the posturing against Iran as well. That's a lot on anyone's plate!

And of course let's not forget Venezuela and Bolivia too. Both nations are exporters of energy and resources to the U.S but are run by very anti-U.S governments that have kicked the U.S diplomats out- does not bode well for the future either!

on Sep 23, 2008

All I offer is the objective opinion that quite frankly you have too many potential enemies and not enough allies at this point-

Humm I wonder if Germany said the same thing to England in 1940?

on Sep 23, 2008

We have enough defeatists in the US already thank you. The US presence across the globe demonstrates our commitment to our friends and Allies. Other nations are welcome to do the same instead of letting the US take up the slack while they sit on their hands and reap the security benefits (and cry about how it's done). Either do that or get in line with most of the rest of the world with their sticky palms stretched out asking for another handout of our "weak" dollar.

on Sep 23, 2008

The US presence across the globe demonstrates our commitment to our friends and Allies

No, the U.S presence across the globe demonstrates that Clinton's ideology of using the U.S military as a prime tool of foreign policy is alive and well. More than 60% of U.S energy is imported from foreign countries, and the bulk of your manufacturing base has also been moved out of country. Approximately 70% of your GDP is based on the consumer- that means people going to shopping malls and big box outlets and buying things manufactured in countries other than America. Therefore, massive garrisoning of military forces is needed as an insurance tool, similar to how the roman empire had garrisons in far flung provinces that sent tribute back to Rome.

Either do that or get in line with most of the rest of the world with their sticky palms stretched out asking for another handout of our "weak" dollar.

And who exactly is asking for this handout? Did you know that if China stops buying your debt (in the form of T-bills) the U.S government will have to default on it's soon to be 11.3 trillion dollars worth of debt, in which case things would pretty much collapse?

on Sep 23, 2008

We have enough defeatists in the US already thank you

I'm sure there are some defeatists but I bet a lot of those you put in that group might actually be realists.

The US presence across the globe demonstrates our commitment to our friends and Allies

No it demonstates our commitment to keeping commercial markets open.

on Sep 23, 2008

Triple wow. Very interesting take on the world's most dangerous boiling pots and very realistic conclusion too. Note that China is Red Communist and Russia is trending that way as quick as Putin, et al can get her there!

 

Kim Jong Il is an unpredictable man to say the least and could definitely choose to monopolize on the situation if a major conflict breaks out elsewhere.

Kim Jong Il is nowhere to be seen over the past few months the predominant rumor being that he had a stroke and is recovering. Yesterday, it was reported that his 2 sons are getting ready to take over and they have been educated in the West and are more prone to see things in a much different light from their father. That remains to be seen.

The whole world, especially Russia and China, is very closely tuned in to our (rotten) financial situation as well. That's got to be another big factor.

on Sep 23, 2008

And who exactly is asking for this handout? Did you know that if China stops buying your debt (in the form of T-bills) the U.S government will have to default on it's soon to be 11.3 trillion dollars worth of debt, in which case things would pretty much collapse?

And how prosperous would China be if the US didn't buy their stuff? - works both ways. Guess they better work hard to keep their investment (the US) healthy. In your next article why not talk about how China is stupid for buying US debt, they seem to think it's a good investment. I'm sure your insight won't be lost on them.

And who exactly is asking for this handout

Well to name one the UN is asking for 78 billion for Africa (I'm sure the US is expected to pony up part of this cash).

Here's another example from 2004

"Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975."

Every Egyptian should have a condo by now.

I'm sure you could find more if you look (it's not hard to find). Point is nobody is twisting anybodies arm to take US cash, I'd love to see any articles where money is refused, I'll be first in line to thank that country for not taking my tax dollars.

The US presence across the globe demonstrates our commitment to our friends and Allies

No, the U.S presence across the globe demonstrates that Clinton's ideology of using the U.S military as a prime tool of foreign policy is alive and well.

What nonsense. When exactly hasn't a nations (any pick one) military not been a foreign policy tool? You say it like it's a bad thing and only something the US does. Even the smallest military has exercises to show neighbors they are prepared. The fact is these countries love the US military - they charge leases for the bases and services (the US pays well), enjoy the economic income from the servicemen and women, and can skimp on their own obligations to defend their own country. These nations are free to ask the US to leave anytime... so why don't they? Cause it benefits them is some way, shape, or form.

No it demonstates our commitment to keeping commercial markets open.

Maybe in part, from a potential third-party that might want to stop trade. But again who is holding a gun against someones head saying they must trade with the US? The US trades with many places that have no US base, even some unfriendly to the US like Venezuela. The US is the guest of the host nation, sorry to disappoint the "US is the Empire" crowd, I know that's gold to many liberals.

on Sep 23, 2008

The US trades with many places that have no US base, even some unfriendly to the US like Venezuela

Did you miss the fact that the US Bush Administration only found Venezuela "unfriendly" when the oil industry there was nationalized? To say that we trade with many where there are no bases is irrelevant. Some trade partners do not face political unrest, or share borders with others that may have opposing interests, or wish or need to have foreign troops within their borders.

US foreign policy is about protecting interests.....mainly commercial interests.

sorry to disappoint the "US is the Empire" crowd,

If protecting commercial interests is a shared interest then it isnt Empire building its protecting shared interests. So stop throwing partisan rhetoric at others and start opening your mind to the big picture.

 

 

on Sep 23, 2008

Nitro-

And how prosperous would China be if the US didn't buy their stuff? - works both ways. Guess they better work hard to keep their investment (the US) healthy. In your next article why not talk about how China is stupid for buying US debt, they seem to think it's a good investment. I'm sure your insight won't be lost on them.

Actually, China isn't stupid at all for buying your debt. They're very smart in that they now effectively control your country through economic means. Yes, if they sell all their T-bills the U.S as you know it will indeed collapse, thus removing China's biggest source of income. However, from their perspective this would be preferable to an actual shooting war, in which massive bombing and possible nuclear exchange would devastate everything.  And, even if trade collapses they've still got all the factories, and raw resources coming primarily from Asia and Africa. This means that they can still produce everything they need for their own needs, and for export to the rest of the world with real tangible assets even though economically things will be in the tank.

A similar thing hapenned in Argentina after their little meltdown a couple of years ago. Although the nations economy was completely ruined, unemployed workers basically walked into shuttered factories and started building widgets again. The factories were sitting their rusting, the workers had nothing better to do. There was no infusion of capital, no company that bought and managed things. Where did they get their resources? Local sources that were equally unemployed and from existing stockpiles.  But because they had the physical factories and resources, they started building shit and selling it, or bartering it in exchange for things they needed. So what hard assets does the U.S have to fall back on? Very little- you've outsource the bulk of your manufacturing and have most of your wealth creation coming from shopping malls and stores dependent on the flow of goods from other countries.

What nonsense. When exactly hasn't a nations (any pick one) military not been a foreign policy tool? You say it like it's a bad thing and only something the US does. Even the smallest military has exercises to show neighbors they are prepared. The fact is these countries love the US military


My response to you is to look up a fellow named Smedley Butler. Funny name, yes, but he was a highly decorated Marine Corps General who fought in several wars for the U.S- and he wrote a book called "War is a Racket" in which he detailed the many dirty uses of the military apparatus for reasons that had nothing to do with actual defense and everything to do with furthering economic prosperity and political compliance. Interestingly enough, this book was written almost 80 years ago, and saddly very little has changed!

on Sep 24, 2008

 

Did you miss the fact that the US Bush Administration only found Venezuela "unfriendly" when the oil industry there was nationalized?

Do some research, Chavez was unfriendly to the US long before he nationalized the oil industry there.

US foreign policy is about protecting interests.....mainly commercial interests.

No argument there, just stating so is every other country on the planet's foreign policy does the same. Your post makes it sound like only the US does this. 

sorry to disappoint the "US is the Empire" crowd,

So stop throwing partisan rhetoric at others and start opening your mind to the big picture.

If the shoe fits. I don't recall mentioning a specific political party. But hey, I'll gladly put my 24 years experience on the front line defending the "big picture" against anyone here on JU that just talks the talk. Let me know when your mind is open.

on Sep 24, 2008

Chavez was unfriendly to the US long before he nationalized the oil industry there

Saying that Chavez was unfriendly is very different from saying Venezuela was unfriendly. Venezuela was "friendly" before Chavez was president.  The move away from privatization of the oil industry began as soon as Chavez was elected.

 

I don't recall mentioning a specific political party.

It doesnt matter that you didnt mentiona a specific party. When someone states economic interests as an undelying factor in foreign policy and you assume that means it is from the

"US is the Empire" crowd

then you are playing with political rhetoric.

 

Your post makes it sound like only the US does this.

Why would you think anyone would think that the US is the only country that promotes economic interests through foreign policy?

The fact is "economic interests" play a major role in every countries foreign policy.

 

2 Pages1 2