> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:51 PM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > > > >Given that, one can see the desire to not just fight defensively. The > fact > >that GWB is so unbelievable incompetent that he could probably coach the > New > >England Patriots into a loss vs. the Little Sisters of the Poor has > clouded > >the question somewhat....making the next step of the US to be more > towards > >isolationism (one of the natural US tendencies). The incompetence of > Bush > >does not mean that treating attacks of this nature as simply a matter for > >the police is a good strategy. I have a very non-sanguine prediction for > >the future, but I'll leave that for the next post. > > > >Dan M. > > > Waiting with bated breath.
I hope your bait breath hasn't ruined your love life over the past few weeks, but I've been thinking about how to express this prediction. I don't think it's a certainty, but it's a real possibility, especially if certain tendencies are followed. There are some assumptions behind it; assumptions that I think that some on the list will differ with. I see these differences in terms of Robert Kagen's discussion of the differences between the US and Europe, with some non-Europeans on the list having views that correspond more closely to the European view. For the past 60 years, the US has been the essential military counterweight to forces that it sees as against its, and many other countries interests. For the first 45 or so years, this was seen in terms of the Cold War. Since then, it has been seen against numerous smaller foes, from Gulf War I, to the Balkans, to North Korea, to Gulf War II. During the last 40 or so years of that time, I have been politically aware. I recall throughout the time that there was a questioning of both the need for such a counter and questioning of how the US countered Communism. In hindsight, I think that the criticism that we were too willing to write blank checks to any anti-Communist was valid. However, I think that the general idea of containment was a good one, and that the European critics of fighting the Cold War (diplomacy and trade was all that was needed)were mistaken. After the Cold War, there was hope that the US could scale down its defense spending and work as part of a broad alliance instead of standing out in front as the main protagonist. That wasn't practical in Gulf War I, since only the US had the military capacity to effectively fight Hussein's army. It was militarily, but not politically practical in the Balkans, where Clinton waited for Europe to take an effective lead before pushing them to follow America's plan. Indeed, the single most striking feature of the Dutchbat report to me was the section where they criticized the US for the mistake of trying to work with the rest of NATO on a more equal basis instead of presenting and pushing hard for a US plan. After 9-11, NATO agreed to go into Afghanistan. It was consistent with earlier military interventions that were agreed upon by NATO, the US furnished the overwhelming majority of the forces, Britain provided a much smaller, but still very useful force, and the other nations provided mostly symbolic assistance. I heard from a reliable source that the US military thought that, with the exception of the British forces, the NATO forces would be more of a hindrance than a help, but the political decision was (and I think correctly) to accept the help and say thank you for it. Then came Bush's Iraq mistake. My guess is that, no matter what we do from here on out, that it will end disastrously. By that, I mean, at the very least, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, the massive loss of civilian life (>100k in a year, and a strengthened and emboldened Iran. The more negative end of this would be a large scale genocide (>250k killed), with neighboring countries dragged into the war. This sets the stage for my negative prediction. At this point, the sentiment that "there's no sense in us getting involved in such nonsense again" will become prevalent in the US. By this, I'm not referring to, merely resolving to not jump into wars of choice like Bush did....but a clear signal that the US is becoming significantly more isolationist. In other words, if Gulf War I or the Balkans were to repeat and someone needed to intervene to prevent things getting worse, the US sentiment would be, "it's someone else's turn to send their sons and daughters." But, even if the world agreed that such intervention was a very good idea (e.g. Gulf War I where even Syria went along with the war), the US would decide it wasn't the world's cop. Gulf War I only passed the Congress by a few votes...and that was >15 years after 'Nam ended. I think that, in light of the even stronger anti-American sentiment that is prevailing now, and the clear damage to American interests caused by this war, that the sentiment against foreign entanglements would become even stronger. The United States might, very well, "just stop messing around in the Middle East." Events in that region would take their internal natural course, without any external attempts to modify possible consequences. Iran will be the dominant power in the region. Tremendous amounts of ready cash will flow into the pockets of those who control the oil fields in the Middle East. Somewhat repressive stable regimes (such as the one in Saudi Arabia) will be replaced by more radical ones...who will be more repressive. Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, and use that as a tool of power. I'm not saying that they will quickly bomb Israel because I think they know that Iran would be hit very hard in return. Instead, they will rely on this ace in the hole as they push their power. At the same time, seeing events as an Islamic victory over the United States, the general support for "radical Islamics" (not really a good name, but I don't have a good name) will grow substantially...including among Moslems in Europe. There will be a moderately slow but steady alienation within Europe. The trends seen over the last few years will continue and spread. In such an environment, I see several things happen. First, additional nuclear proliferation will be seen. I'd expect a Sunni bomb (a radical Saudi government?)to be produced. Second, command and control will not be as effective as it has been with previous nuclear powers. Somewhere, somehow factions will get their hands on nuclear material. Libya's nuclear program is an example of how easily such a program can be hidden. And, in the oil patch, it should be easy to get one's hands on a nuclear bomb trigger....perhaps by having one "lost in hole" during logging (the pulsed neutron tool contains a neutron generator that can be used as a bomb trigger). And then, one of two things could/will happen. Either a city in Israel or one in the US will be turned to glass. The former would probably start a Mid-East nuclear war. Looking at Israel, it would take no more than 3-4 atomic bombs to virtually wipe it off the map. After that, the Israeli military would have no home left, but still retain a second strike capacity. The second would be a hit on an American city. The idea behind such an attack would be to prove to the US citizens that they were very vulnerable in a war. Seeing the US as weak, and ultimately surrendering when faced with real opposition, the perpetrators of such an attack would expect it to be a step towards victory. But, that would not be the American response. In a sense, the US tendency is bipolar: either do or don't do it. I see the response of the US as "gloves off, now." I think the general sense of the citizens of the US would be "to protect the United States at all costs." Internally, civil liberties would be severely curtailed. Internationally, the US would use its power in a way it had not during the 20th century. I'd expect, at a minimum, US control of much of the Middle East for the foreseeable future, as well as a general "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude towards potential threats. A nuclear attack is the most probable in my view, but not the only possibility. The cost inherent in biological warfare should continue to grow down. There is a chance that designer diseases could become possible for those with access to a few million dollars and a few appropriately trained grad. students. Going back to my early post on seeing the present situation in terms of a world insurgency, one has a framework for understanding the potential dangers of US isolationism. There have been a lot of comments about the world not needed the US to be a self appointed policeman. But, without the US military, there is no real capacity for the projection of anything but the most modest force. It's true that the French can intervene in low budget African conflicts, but Europe wasn't even able to handle Serbia on its own. I think the arguments that the present alternative to a single superpower, unipolar world is an unpolar world. In such a world, I think risks will continue to increase until there is a catastrophic attack. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
