86 comments on An insight on US strategic thinking - why so much cowering fear?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
86 comments on An insight on US strategic thinking - why so much cowering fear?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
It's an interesting world view, but one that is based in past realities. It assumes that other countries (including China, which Corn lists as an enemy in this "Long War") will continue to economically support the American economy, which supports the American war machine, which has been most of the backbone of NATO.
In reality, the Iraqi conflict has shown us the limits of America's "hard power". The American will is exhausted (except among the chattering classes) and the economy is following close behind. The "soft power" so derided in Corn's report is not only cost-effective, but has a higher chance of obtaining the outcome without political or economic disruption. In the long run, it must win, unless one completely topples the board.
If the future of warfare is muscular in any sense, it must be based on an extremely focused effort over a short period - think a knockout, as opposed to a long, protracted fight. But even that is fraught with peril. Because though you may remove a government from power, or remove a perceived threat, it might also be replaced by worse.
In short, the Chinese have a winning strategy. This report gives a recipe for economic (and perhaps nuclear) disaster. The only way to win this conflict (if indeed it is a conflict) is to fight with the same "soft war" tactics. It is the only kind of battle economically and politically sustainable over the long term.
IMHO, the reason the Chinese have a winning strategy is because the Chinese government is dominant in their society. American leaders are not stupid (they would literally have to be retarded to explain many actions over the last 7 years)- almost all of them are "ambitious" and their personal ambitions conflict with the needs of the nation. As an example, the Chinese military does not exist primarily to funnel taxpayers' money through connected pockets to other connected pockets. Does anyone actually believe that if China had invaded Iraq, billions of dollars in currency would have "vanished"? IMHO, if China had invaded Iraq, the country would have been pacified and rebuilt by now (because that would have been the intention, unlike the current situation).
Actually, China is pretty corrupt, but then it rarely invades other countries. The mandarins, since long before Mao, have feared their outlying suzerains might slip from under their control, and Iraq-style corruption is a manifestation of that.
And the Chinese army is so corrupt that it took Simonov rifles from its own troops to sell for $100 each to American gun nuts.
What makes them different from us is that the pure profit they made went back to the development of their country. But then America was awfully corrupt 100 years ago; the Republican robber barons had to turn part of what they stole into free libraries and hospitals, the Democratic vote machines created decent jobs for ethnic whites struggling to civilize their children. They were all patriots, in a way we can't understand now.
Super: I agree. The rulers of China appear to have the future strength of China as an important goal. Does anyone actually believe that the rulers of the USA have the future strength of the USA as an important goal- that a country which dominated the global economy 50 years ago declined so dramatically while everyone in a position of power was doing their best to prevent it? I doubt that. The reality is that the rulers of the USA, just like the rulers of Enron, realized that a better deal was to gut the thing from the inside and take what they can.
I can't decide what to worry about more:
that they have a plan for what they will do to us after they destroy society,
or that they don't.
"American leaders are not stupid ... almost all of them are "ambitious" ... "
So remind me, what great accomplishments did the 'decider' have before he was put in charge of US government? Getting off the bottle, maybe.
For me, Peak Oil and the possible social turmoil in its aftermath are a possible way to avoid the Long Great Game War. It is a really, really disruptive event.
IMO, Iran is to World War Three as Poland was to World War Two.
I think that's right in one way, wrong in another -- because the US is already stopped in Baghdad. Nothing stopped the Germans until Moscow and Stalingrad. Also, with the advent of Poland, the West was ready to resist. That may be what you mean in regard to Iran -- but I'm not sure the same will happen. But that it will be a major turning point, on that fundamental level I think you are right.
World Wars 1 & 2 were, in part, about energy. Now we allow as resources are diminishing, not just on a regional level as before, but on the global level. Odds on a nuclear World War 3 anyone? I’d say 50-50.
I think it is lower than that for a large scale war. No one but the US is able to field a sizable army. A protracted middle east war, maybe. But if peak oil hits hard and we are not able to mobilize to move to another energy base (like nuclear, wind and solar) we could have sort of general conflict through out the developing war as they go through their big die-off.
Nuclear WW3? Ridiculous.
Without oil to fuel conventional armies what else is there to fight with but nukes?
Wrong wrong wrong.
Read Machiavel. He's so right. He's so fucking right. USA will not be able to control anything in the near future.