September 13th, 2009 10:36 EST
Geopolitical Realities of Defense
Non-conventional Reality -- WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction]
Most of my life, I resented hearing planes flying overhead. I resented the contrails in their wake -- not after the planes were grounded on 9-11. It was creepy. The sky was dead; it felt like the coming of a Dark Age. Every 9-11, I weep. Every 9-12, I weep some more. I think it is fitting to submit this on a 9-12.
"Not a matter of if, but when"
A US terrorism expert now in Europe studying Islamic jihadist networks said officials at London`s Scotland Yard told him last month that attacks in their homeland were inevitable.
"The British police told me, and they`ve been telling everyone for a long time, that it was not a matter of if, but when," said Robert Leiken, director of immigration and national security issues at the Washington, D.C.-based Nixon Center. [snip]
"Europe, I tend to see it as a harbinger of what`s coming here to the United States. Madrid, I think, was the first warning. " [snip]
Speaking of Madrid ...
As recently as 2008, Spain was reportedly targeted for more terror attacks.
"After jailing seven of the ETA terror suspects arrested last week, Judge Baltasar GarzÃ³n revealed yesterday that the separatist cell had been planning a series of bombings on hotels, shopping centres and night spots across AndalucÃa next month." [snip]
How can that be? Spain even threw an election to appease terrorists after the train bombings of Madrid.
An anti-peace movement growing in Spain. Here is a handy search link for the latest on Spain and Terror:
What about the other extreme -- Israel? How well is the war on terror working over there? Terribly. Terror continues to hound Israelis. The Israeli troops fight back, and terror resumes like clockwork.
OK, so what about taking compromise even more seriously with terror? No one compromises with terror more than those who convert to Islam. Guess what? Islamics kill each other more than anyone else. Just consider the history of Lebanon.
Bottom line: terrorism is here to stay. While surrender would only make matters worse, total war is not a solution either [even Israel understands that].
The truth is, once a terror cult is formed, it never goes away completely. Just think -- the world still has Nazis for crying out loud.
The best you can hope is for terror cults to fade. It is just as important to undermine the "piety" of terrorists as it is to destroy them physically. Looking at the Nazis, the Anti-Defamation League has done legendary work in exposing what monsters the Nazis are. Just because Kurt Waldheim [former Nazi], was UN Secretary General, and just because Ratzinger [the Pope] was a member of Hitler Youth [albeit he deserted the ranks the first chance he had as I understand it], that is no reason to feel completely discouraged. At least it repulses the average person to know that so-and-so was a Nazi. It takes time for these institutions to realize how insane it is to even have the appearance of being affiliated with Nazis. The same is true with Islam. We might get shocking surprises in the future that some future UN Secretary General was an Islamic terrorist. The UN, if history is any indication, will give him a nice pension [just like Kurt Waldheim]. But maybe that icon of "integrity" will learn its lesson next time.
Papal hopeful is a former Hitler Youth - Times Online
"Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth ..."
Secretary-General of the UN 1972 " 82 [Ten years!]
"He was an intelligence officer on the staff of General Alexander LÃ¶hr ..." [snip]
"LÃ¶hr was executed after the war as a war criminal ..." [snip]
In 1938, three weeks after Adolph Hitler annexed Austria, Waldheim joined the Nazi student union, and later that year he joined the mounted unit of the Nazis` notorious paramilitary force, the Sturm-Abteilung (S.A.) or "brown-shirts." [snip]
US Senator Daniel Moynihan called Waldheim`s victory "a symbolic amnesty for the Holocaust." [snip]
UN paying disgraced Waldheim $125,000 per year " [as a pension]
Attached is an exclusive " story from page one of today`s New York Daily News, revealing that Kurt Waldheim " whom the US Justice Department found to have assisted or participated " in mass deportations of Greek and Yugoslav Jews to Nazi death camps, and in the execution of Allied prisoners " is receiving $125,000 each year out of the UN budget ... " [snip]
So there you have it. The world has suffered tolerance of terrorists in the past and managed to marginalize them. At the same time, we have a good idea how the UN really feels about terrorists -- give them pensions. [For those in the know ", the UN has been a joke for decades.]
We have a chance to prevent something worse. 9-11 was a warning. But we are not taking necessary steps to defend ourselves. There will be a future attack. The odds are high it will be from extremists of far right Islam, but no one can be certain. All that is certain is that terrorists will soon have the technology to destroy innocent men, women, and children on a record scale, and they will. "It`s not a matter of "if" but of "when".
The math is simple; the concept is basic. The only word a child may grapple with is "proliferation".
Too late, people will awaken to a truth: we collectively squabble over petty matters while letting the nuclear fox in the hen house. I do not foresee any world leader honorable enough, visionary enough, and strong enough to unite the many peace loving nations against a few monsters, not until we are faced with unspeakable carnage staring back at us through plasma screens. Even then, such a leader would be challenged to the limit by political forces steeped in professional corruption and merged jealousy.
Other threats could be bio-terror, chemical WMDs, EMPs, and water contamination.
Nuclear power zealots are pushing for nuclear plants like never before. They call it "clean power". I agree that France and Japan benefit greatly from clean nuclear energy -- but the United States? Many in the RNC who want nuclear power also want wide open borders [a "guest worker" program, some call it]. Oh does that make "sense" -- why not have illegal immigrants construct our nuclear plants and save a buck? Let`s get serious -- until our borders are safe, terrorists can sneak across them and infiltrate nuclear construction sites. Nuclear + Amnesty = Irresponsible DC Clown. As wonderful as nuclear power is, the US cannot afford any new vulnerabilities.
Hispanderers say that they take our nation`s defense seriously -- how? A dirty nuke could be crossing the border as I write, and get this -- they want a road to cut through the US from Mexico to Canada [part of the NAFTA Treaty]. What a "great" idea. Our border patrols have such an easy job right now. Anyone who wants to widen our borders more cannot possibly take our nation`s defense seriously. If we can protect our military bases, I think it is safe to say that we have the know-how to watch for border crossers. Imagine the mileage of our military base pickets. How many hundreds of miles does our military guard to keep bases secure? [Last I heard, not many people who try to sneak into bases ever get shot either.] Why can`t we put half that kind of dedication to our borders? Mexico, after all, is far harsher with illegal immigrants than the US [unless they are on the way out].
The conventional reality is that the world is in danger of a new Dark Age that could originate either in Africa or Eastern Asia. Not only that, but South [and Central] America is growing unstable as well.
`I Witnessed the Massacre in Tibet` [Video Links Included]
This short video clearly records the incident that day. On snow-covered ground, over 20 Tibetan refugees lined up and walked with great difficulty. All of sudden, one of them, walking in the front, staggered and then fell to the ground. The camera moved to a Chinese soldier who was opening fire ... The video also shows a Chinese soldier smoking and taking a rest after "completing the task." [snip]
"To date, of six million Tibetans, over 130,000 have successfully escaped to India or Nepal." [snip]
Peace-loving Tibet begs the Free World to save them from this evil. Does anyone honestly think that the new and improved China will stop there?
Cobble that with the Tiananmen Square Massacre [China`s reforms sure have been "something", huh?], and you have a good idea how well passive resistance would work in India. [Any wonder that India has the Bomb?]
China is poised. One look at the world map, and it is easy to perceive that Africa, Asia, and Europe are vulnerable to land based invasions. Anyone who could ever secure all three continents would be the world`s new sole super power -- the Western Hemisphere would find itself vulnerable. Even the United States would feel intimidated within a few years.
A land power could easily dominate Africa/Asia/Europe without a navy. While a navy is useful for raids, it would still require land battles to take the land back. China`s military is growing at an astounding rate:
China`s New Multi-Faceted Maritime Strategy - Elsevier
China`s rapid modernization over the past decade has resulted in a steady ... Simultaneously, a strong brown water fleet, combined with a nascent but ... " [snip]
As far as I am concerned, China is a super power already. The main thing preventing massive invasions by China right now is nuclear deterrence. However, technology has changed since the Cold War: how do you hide your missile silos from spy satellites? Bunker busting technology will soon make silos insufficient to secure nuclear missiles. The only threat other than the US is Russia. I hate the thought of relying on Putin to be noble. He wants to regain lost territories himself; some kind of unpleasant deal would be cut.
Thus will one future of low budget nuclear deterrence be espionage. A portable nuclear bomb can be concealed by lead shielding. [Lead itself will soon be a red flag for investigation, if it is not already.] What kind of spy will these nations trust? That is hit-or-miss. Any safeguards to prevent a stolen nuke from being detonated can ultimately be bypassed. Pakistan would be less squeamish about that problem than India. But even for Pakistan, spy-held nukes are not a reliable deterrence.
The other option would be submarine held nukes. A brown water sub is good for stealth. Both India and Pakistan have access to the sea. But that is not the same as having deep water subs hiding under the Arctic ice. Sub based deterrence [most likely to be India`s favored option] will be attempted, but not reliable because China is far ahead of its neighbors:
China`s New Multi-Faceted Maritime Strategy - Elsevier
China`s rapid modernization over the past decade has resulted in a steady ... Simultaneously, a strong brown water fleet, combined with a nascent but ... [snip]
That threatens not only Taiwan, but also Japan, Australia, and nearby Pacific islands. The US Navy remains a sufficient deterrence, but China`s economic growth means that time is against our Pacific allies. If the US appears too weak, our allies will flip over to China and part of the problem.
Japan is much more significant strategically than people might realize. Why? Inventions. The US is no longer the world`s leading inventor -- Japan is now. Their alliance with the US is vital. So what happens if China conquers Taiwan? Japan would become very uncomfortable as a US ally.
Internal pressures in China are another consideration. There is a growing disparity -- more males than females. China will grow increasingly tempted to relieve that pressure with a war:
CHINA Gender disparity increases: 121 males born for every 100 ...
Conclusion: China is a powder keg.
There is little need to elaborate on the discord in Africa [common knowledge]. The only good news [geopolitically] is that Africa is falling behind technologically. The bad news is that some meddlesome force could prop up a dictator who might unite Africa and, through fascist scapegoating, mobilize the united continent to become a super power. Such a feat is possible, although two can play at that game. While one force pushes for a dictator, other forces can support the dictator`s enemies. Do not be surprised if war persists in Africa for a long time. The fundamental problem with Africa is simple: hatred. Natural resources abound, but Africa needs to love peace more. That will simply not occur until there is less disparity in weaponry; the weak must become strong. A good example is the way a single machine gun can run off starving masses at a food drop. Until more Africans have the proverbial equalizer ", starvation will continue to be an easy way to kill off one`s enemies. Loving peace is impossible in such an environment. The winning side is drunk with realized vengeance. The losing side [if it survives] will feel homicidal hatred that could infiltrate future generations.
Conclusion: Africa will continue to be a starving battle ground until more Africans are armed. [Even then, it will have one more bloody generation.]
South [and Central] America:
Honduras became seriously close to unraveling, largely thanks to Hugo Chavez:
Chavez threatens military action over Honduras coup | U.S. | Reuters
"When Honduras` leader was ousted, Hugo Chavez at first blamed the US and threatened war, but then he got unusually quiet. Shortly after the Honduras` ..."
Hugo ChÃ¡vez halts oil shipments to Honduras - Daily News - EL ...
The De Facto Honduras Government Serves the Purposes of Hugo ...
THE AIM of US policy in Honduras should be to reinforce the principles of democracy ... Zelaya and his mentor, Hugo ChÃ¡vez -- who are seeking to subvert them. [snip]
South and Central America could even lead to greater instability in Mexico [a powder keg in its own right]. While the US can temporize these problems, anti-US sentiment will make decisive intervention a challenge. Nor do US citizens have the willingness to do much about this meltdown, which will expand to Columbia and other bordering nations. In the end, it will be a drag on the US geopolitically, a growing number of enemies on our own doorstep who will ally themselves with any future enemies [such as China].
Afghanistan and Iraq:
Things had begun to stabilize until recently. Now everything is beginning to unravel and the US response appears weak, which is emboldening our enemies. Unless the President can find more visionary commanders to drastically reverse the momentum, we will lose that front. The resulting vacuum will result in a slaughter of any Afghani and Iraqi citizens who might possibly provide us with intel. In the end, the only survivors will be those who voice hatred of the US They will become permanent enemies, eager to harm the US any way they can, including alliances with other US enemies.
I would personally advise a lighter and more mobile US military presence with less ideological humanitarian goals. We should be fighting to win on the cheap. It would mean more slain civilians. Due to political pressures, I doubt that will be implemented. If we let large forces get bogged down in Afghanistan, that would be following the path of the old USSR, and it would be much like Vietnam.
Money is the driving force of a modern military. The US does not have much left to spare. Without a strong economy, US defense, Intel, and research/development will deteriorate. Morale in the US military is already beginning to erode. Based on our current strategy, a draft might be needed soon: that would greatly undermine military training and discipline. Draftees would increase our casualty count, eroding public support further. Poor discipline would lead to more PR opportunities for our enemies to spread anti-US hatred [which would, in turn, dry up Intel]. A draft would mean near-certain defeat for the US unless we were willing to expand our defense budget astronomically. Whether we win or lose, casualties would easily be triple that of a volunteer force.
US Worldwide Prestige:
If we are somehow victorious in Afghanistan, it would increase US prestige. China would have difficulty gagging our ability to rally the world against invasions. China would bide its time with more economic development and most likely allow Hong Kong to have greater influence in social issues. If we lose, China will turn militant, increase the pace of military development, and become more aggressive. The Chinese would form alliances with Hugo Chavez and Cuba, spreading instability in the Western Hemisphere. China would also attempt to prop up a chosen dictator in Africa, someone who the US already hates, such as Mugabe. [That would ensure what side the dictator would be on.] Trade would be undermined, weakening the US further. The US currency would be sabotaged. China would meddle in commodities; oil and other commodities would be pumped and dumped at our expense [and China`s profit]. Cyber attacks would increase. Terrorist organizations would become China`s cat`s paws [as well as terror states]. At some point, China would test our resolve with a new threat to Taiwan. Our response would be critical.
One thought is to simply let the world grow up and take care of its own problems. The US could take a page from Switzerland and back away from world events. If we do that, I believe that a billion people throughout the world would be massacred within two years. Perhaps that would be a good thing? If we truly fear overpopulation, that is a possible solution. It would reduce the worldwide carbon footprint. But that`s just short term. Long term, China would control four continents: Asia, Africa, Europe, and Australia. The entire world`s environmental future would be at the mercy of one blood-thirsty thug, a ruthless mass murderer. So even the most inhuman among us will ultimately relent and join in a world war. The only problem is that we would be in a worse strategic position at that point. Our fleets would be moth-balled. Our pilots would be rusty. Our officers would be in other careers. It would still lead to a billion dead before we could respond effectively. Our economy would be so unstable that it is impossible to know how weak it would be by then. And frankly, as fragile as our geopolitical position currently is, we would lose if we did not have every trick up our sleeve ahead of time. The nuclear option would look better by the day. Irony: a bunker mentality could lead to nuclear war.
Would China risk such a contingency? One must realize how incrementally our resolve would be tested. A nibble here, a city taken there. Where do you draw the line? The bites would grow moderately larger. If we attempt Operation US Bunker, how many months would it take before China invades India? [It would be foolish to assume that China does not already have a plan to destroy India`s silos.] Based on the history of Tibet and Tiananmen Square, how long before China wipes out entire cities [but keeping the young females]?
Pulling Out of Afghanistan:
We would lose prestige if we pull out, but better that than to bleed in a long term quagmire fought halfheartedly. As things stand currently, a pull-out is inevitable anyway. If we continue to fight, we need to focus more on actual victory. Yes, we must win hearts and minds, but we also need to kill people and break things. One the one hand, love. The other hand must hold a sword dripping blood. We need a country united, and there lies the rub. We are not united. That`s why we hold back our punches. It`s like a loved one going berserk on you -- how do you fight back?
If we fail to rethink our strategy, we might as well tell our military that all of their sacrifice was a waste of time. War heroes died for nothing. We were attacked on 9-11, but we lost the war, and all who hate us can gloat.
We could survive the humiliation. Bear in mind that we would be abandoning the men, women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan who risk their lives to provide us Intel. But hey, don`t let that spoil your day. Time to move on. After we abandon them to unspeakable torture, we need to forget all that and increase our support of Taiwan. Yes, it would anger China to no end, but when you appear weak you need to get up, dust yourself off, and demonstrate strength.
Economy the Golden Goose:
Our economy has been growing fragile for a long time. Without industrial growth or a willingness to exploit raw materials, no economy can remain self-sustaining. Our economy is the backbone of our defense. Anyone who weakens our economy strengthens a future dictator and helps risk a future nuclear war. Here is one example: out of environmental concerns, we banned drilling off our coastline -- a noble intention. Does that stop Cuba and other foreign powers from drilling off our coasts? No. International law allows any nation to drill close to any shore. Without that law, we would see gas prices well beyond $4 a gallon. So aren`t we the cute little schmucks? We are too pure to drill off our coasts, and Cuba is not. Not only does this hurt us economically, but blockheaded mistakes like that ultimately contribute to worldwide instability. It is almost as if foreign influences are behind such absurdity. To top it off, US money is now going to support drilling off the coast of Brazil. A good summary of this self-inflicted wound is here:
[Also a payoff to Soros, who decided to invest in drilling for oil.]
This madness weakens our economy with no true benefit to the environment. How do we maintain defense with judgment like that? [Let alone our economic pain.]
The good news? With the Information Age, we are in a stronger position to get better informed at lightning speed. I believe that wisdom will triumph -- quickly enough? Difficult to say.