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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 24, 2008

Well the OP is a classic realist thought on the possible threats and pitfalls that the US might soon face.  A realist would do just what Artysim said, pull out forces and reequip and regain some leverage over things that the country can actually handle.  Between Russia (which is primarily interested solely in its 'near abroad' hence, the Baltics and Ukraine), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran, the US has bit off more than it can chew.  This is why some sort of defining of priorities and pull back is needed, so it can decide which of these battles it is most concerned about, and it can make sure it wins them.  There is nothing "defeatist" about this.  In fact it is quite the opposite, making sure you are not overstretched so you can at least advance your interests in some ways.  Blind and thoughtless optimism is not the way to get your way geopolitically.

on Sep 25, 2008

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.

Venezuela is still friendly (the people) jsut not the government (Chavez).  Dont confuse the 2.

on Sep 25, 2008

Well the OP is a classic realist thought on the possible threats and pitfalls that the US might soon face

Yay, someone agrees with me! W00t!!

on Sep 25, 2008

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.

Chavez elected was elected President in 1998 and was reelected in 2000 and in 2006.

Venezuela nationalize it's oil industry July 2007 (Link)

Chavez is the sole voice for Venezuela, since opposition is stifled, countries can't be friendly or unfriendly only people can. Until they are allowed to express their own voice, all we have is Chavez's opinion. I know the Hollywood elite loves him (wonder if they still will if Obama gets in and Hugo blasts him just like Bush) but I doubt he speaks for every Venezuelan. He needs an enemy to make his socialist plans work. What better than a nation that needs your oil since you can say what you like with little chance of repercussion. To change this farce into a truism all he would have to do is stop selling oil to the US.  

on Sep 25, 2008

A realist would do just what Artysim said, pull out forces and reequip and regain some leverage over things that the country can actually handle. Between Russia (which is primarily interested solely in its 'near abroad' hence, the Baltics and Ukraine), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran, the US has bit off more than it can chew.

It's was done before in the past. The Baltic States were left to their own devices in 1939 and absorbed into the USSR (how wonderful for them and convenient for you, not living so close).

Last I looked we weren't at war with Pakistan, Iran, and Russia, not to say they don't deserve attention. Iraq is slowing down. So where exactly should our priorities be? What makes you believe we can't do more than one thing at a time? If your suggesting pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan without a resolution that is defeatism. The other areas you suggest would fall under isolationism (we got a big taste of that following the event I mentioned above). The US was "overstretched" Dec 7, 1941 too (far worse than today), maybe your plan would have made a big difference in the outcome (for the Axis I'm sure).

Blind and thoughtless optimism is not the way to get your way geopolitically.

Whose suggesting that? Nothing is easy or clearcut General. Time  proves again and again that it is harder and costlier to get back what was lost through negligence than if a small amount vigilance were applied. It's easy to be indifferent when your home isn't being shelled or your market isn't blowing up, bet you'd want something done quick if it were. It all boils down to what you believe is worth fighting for, for some on JU that's very little.

on Sep 25, 2008

Last I looked we weren't at war with Pakistan, Iran, and Russia, not to say they don't deserve attention. Iraq is slowing down. So where exactly should our priorities be?

No, you indeed aren't. The whole point of this article is that with existing military commitments, and including the new commitments to build and staff a ring of NATO bases in eastern europe bordering Russia, that you soon will be overextended should a "major" conflict occur or multiple regional conflicts flare up. Therefore, the best thing to do would be to consolidate- there is no reason why the U.S needs almost 800 military bases and installations outside of it's own borders- bring the troops home, except from where they're really needed and you'll be in a better position to focus on issues one thing at a time!

on Sep 25, 2008

or multiple regional conflicts flare up

Kinda looks like that stage of the game is already starting.

on Sep 26, 2008

there is no reason why the U.S needs almost 800 military bases and installations outside of it's own borders- bring the troops home,

Yeah, put that in the suggestion box under "You don't need logistical support". Sorry the US is just not the fearsome deterrent to world aggression that Canada is today. The US gets sucked into every major war anyway, not because the Queen of England is on our coin and currency, so we might as well be prepared, cause we can't count on Europe (Western) to come through, even if they are threatened directly. Memories are fresh in Eastern Europe, they know what is in store for the unprepared and indifferent.

Don't worry, one part of me would like to see the rest of the world fend for itself, problem is that usually ended up costing more US lives in the long run. So I and others graciously put up with liberal ideologues that seem to think history never repeats itself, then cry for US intervention when they are affected. If we're overstretched we'll build a bigger army. So for your input, thanks but no thanks. So glad your gov doesn't share your view.

on Sep 26, 2008

The whole point of this article is that with existing military commitments, and including the new commitments to build and staff a ring of NATO bases in eastern europe bordering Russia, that you soon will be overextended should a "major" conflict occur or multiple regional conflicts flare up.

I don't know. they say some of the smartest people in the US work for the Gov't I have to believe they have thought about these types of scenarios and I highly doubt that anyone, not even Bush, would be dumb enough to spread us too thin as to make up weak. You make a good point Artysim, but in the end my faith is in the Gov't, full of very smart (and a lot of idiots as well) people as oppose to the opinions of a single guy on some blog site on the Internet.

Therefore, the best thing to do would be to consolidate- there is no reason why the U.S needs almost 800 military bases and installations outside of it's own borders- bring the troops home, except from where they're really needed and you'll be in a better position to focus on issues one thing at a time!

Again, I believe that this idea was thought thru and believed to be the right move by a lot of very smart people. I find it hard to believe that regardless of how much money anyone could be offered (and in a large group) that many people woul actually agree on a plan that could destroy an entire country. Although the economy would say otherwise, these people bet on the US bailing them out, we bet on our allies and i'm sure those bets are more likely to be won.

on Sep 26, 2008

Yeah, put that in the suggestion box under "You don't need logistical support". Sorry the US is just not the fearsome deterrent to world aggression that Canada is today. The US gets sucked into every major war anyway, not because the Queen of England is on our coin and currency, so we might as well be prepared, cause we can't count on Europe (Western) to come through, even if they are threatened directly. Memories are fresh in Eastern Europe, they know what is in store for the unprepared and indifferent.

Very well put!

2 Pages1 2