Next Small War

[GorTex6]

........... Havana vacation packages from LA, Dulles and Newark become the hottest tickets to get.

.....that stash of Cohibas will lose value overnight!

[GorTex6]

China Trains Venezuelan Commandos

[Strickland]

Dont the Chinese get a TON of oil from Iraq and Iran?

[GorTex6]

Saddam bribed China with oil deals

Big Shift in China's Oil Policy

The Iraq war helped bolster Beijing-Tehran relations

Clue?

[Strickland]

Considering how much oil we get from mexico, canada, and produce domestically, I am always amazed at how many think we are draining the middle east of its oil reserves.

[DDilegge]

Big Shift in China's Oil Policy

Wall Street Journal 25 Jan. Commentary - Oil for Missiles - Our friends the Saudis make friends with the Chinese.

It was no coincidence that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah this week chose China for his first official trip outside the Middle East since acceding to the throne in August. With five agreements signed during the visit, including a pact for closer cooperation in oil, natural gas and minerals, the two countries are laying the foundations for a strategic relationship that challenges U.S. interests.

Humiliated by their dependence on Washington for survival in the wake of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi royal family has long been seeking to forge closer ties with Beijing in the hope of reducing their dependence on the U.S. The Saudis began moving in this direction even before the first Gulf War, secretly negotiating a deal with China in the mid-'80s to purchase CSS-2 ballistic missiles. That was an affront to the Reagan administration and its policy of preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles. But the Saudis risked American ire because they saw Iran, Iraq and Israel all armed with ballistic missiles and did not want to be left out. In return, China won hard currency for the missile sale, as well as diplomatic relations with Riyadh in a snub to Taiwan.

Since 9/11, and the American public's backlash over the fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, Riyadh's search for a new strategic partner has assumed fresh impetus. China, for its part, is importing ever increasing amounts of oil from the Gulf to fuel its rapidly expanding economy. That has prompted a degree of paranoia over "energy insecurity." Beijing military strategists worry that, because they lack America's "blue water" navy, the country is potentially vulnerable to a U.S. blockade of oil shipments from the Gulf to China.

Hence the mutual interest in a closer relationship demonstrated during King Abdullah's three-day visit, which ended yesterday. For all the headlines about the agreements he signed with President Hu Jintao on issues such as energy cooperation and double taxation, it's a safe assumption that strategic issues were also on the agenda away from the bright lights of the media. Saudi Arabia's CSS-2 missiles are now obsolescent and Riyadh would welcome modern Chinese models as replacements. For Beijing, that offers a useful ###-for-tat should Washington agree to further large arms sales to Taiwan. But it would come at the price of violating China's commitment to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime, which seeks to control international transfers of ballistic missile technology...

[Merv Benson]

China's recent increase in the need for oil has made the Persian Gulf an area of greater strategic importance. The same could be said for India. It is not surprising that China and the Saudis could find some trade of mututal interest. But if the Saudis are after missiles, the threat that they would most likely want to address is the one from Iran. What is not clear is why China does not recognize that Iran's nukes pose an indirect threat to their flow of oil, since Iran has threatened to shut down the Straights of Hormuz. It is in China's interest to cooperate with the US and the EU 3 in eliminating that threat through peaceful means, because if peaceful means fail, they will feel the impact whether or not they participate.

I think the Russians have a different strategic interest and they benefit both from selling technology to Iran as well as a disruption in the flow of oil since they are net exporters. That is why they are unlikely to be helpful.

[Strickland]

This is why the US asked both the Indians and Chinese if they would like to participate in the coalition for OIF. Just imagine if they had agreed to participate. If you read Barnett's book, he makes the argument that we are fighting in Iraq in part to ensure that both these emerging global markets continue to receive the energy resources they demand for continued growth.

[GorTex6]

Unrestricted Warfare

Free Copy

the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed. In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it."

[Strickland]

Perhaps we as a nation face potential major conventional wars with North Korea, Iran, China, and Cuba-Venezuela due to our inability to successfully prosecute small wars?

Since 1979 we have pursued a confused policy with Iran that includes NO diplomatic relations (NO embassy), seizure of Iranian assets within the US (several billion dollars), and the tanker wars; however, have allowed the Iranians to continue as the largest state sponsor of terror, and failed to punish their primary beneficiary - Hizbollah for the murder of hundreds of Americans to include the 1983 Beirut bombings. Furthermore, we allowed tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites to be murdered by Saddam following the 1991 uprisings out of a fear that the Iranians would somehow gain unwanted influence. All throughout this period, our allies - the French, Germans, Japanese, Italians, and South Koreans continued to increase economic ties with the Iranians.

As for the North Koreans, we continue to maintain some half-assed cease-fire with them that needs to end as the first step to any agreement. The North Korean Regime may be the largest state sanctioned criminal enterprise (perhaps Mexico), engaging in drug-trafficking and counterfeiting as primary economic enterprises. Through the years we have tolerated their seizure of the USS Pueblo, and the shooting-down of a USN aircraft killing 31. Over the past decade, the presence of 37,000 US troops within South Korea has become a significant source of tension between the ROK and US, and perhaps the single largest destabilizing source on the peninsula aside from Kim himself. The Kim family has been given 53 years (1953) to establish a cult of personality within North Korea, and thus further strengthen their absolute control. As with US policy toward Iran, our policy here is as confused. As with the Iranians, it is insane for the US to beat the war drum about nukes from N Korea getting into terrorist hands when in fact we have not made every effort possible to account for all the nuclear or biological weapons of the former Soviet Union.

In South and Central America, the US has pursued the War on Drugs since 1971, yet cannot stem the flow on illegal drugs from Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, or Bolivia. For decades, we have attempted to assist the Colombians through a limited application of SOF and billions of dollars of aid. What has this achieved? FARC remains in control of significant portions of Colombia, now receives external support from Venezuela, and at one time was ceded a portion of the country by the Colombian president. We must decide once and for all what our policy in Colombia will or should be. In the end, regardless of which course of action we choose, we must be able to secure our borders. This continues to be a source of embarrasment for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we ask the Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Pakis to secure their borders. If we cant do it, why should be assume any other nation can?

Before we go off planning the next great war with China, how about we get the USN to focus on keeping the Straits of Malacca and South China Sea open to trade and free of pirates and terrorists? That seems like a more reasonable request.

In the end, if I had vote as to where we should fight the next small war, I would argue Mexico, with Lebanon as first runner-up.

[Stratiotes]

Amen to that, Major.

Instead of nation-building and trying to teach soldiers how to be cops for the world police force, perhaps we should have had them policing and protecting our own borders. It is, ostensibly, the job of the military to be our national defense - rather than somebody else's national defense.

[Brian B]

Would wholeheartedly agree on Mexico (the whole border area) being the site for the next Small War. The more things that come to light as to what's taking place there with illegals and drug trafficking make it a more likely spot every day. It would take a great deal of coordination between Homeland Security and Defense to make it happen. Given the difficulties in Iraq between State and Defense, if those are any indication, I'd hope that we're figuring out the way to make them work together in such an endeavor. Not to mention, the legal questions that would need answered and obstacles overcome.

[M. J. Dougherty]

ALCON,
I am troubled by the what appears to be a complete lack of understanding among U.S. senior political and military leadership with respect to the strategic context of future war. There appears to be little appreciation that nonstate adversaries today are shaping the strategic environment for a conflict they anticipate decades in the future. U.S. leadership is fixated on the crisis de jur and lacks any meaningful plans for any threat other than China.
The coming conflict(s) in SE Asia are predicated on the most intractable of issues: ethnicity, religion, resource wars and perceptions of relative deprivation. Currently we see the states of SE Asia growing more unstable as internal conflicts, crime, corruption and growing disparity between the haves & have nots erode confidence in national and local level government. These instabilities can not be solved by short-tem "quick-fix" military deployments or military aid to corrupt and inefficient governments.
Anybody have comments?

[Martin]

Anybody have comments?

Yes, borne out of your post, but not related to it enough to hijack the thread.

On the other hand, I would really like to hear a more detailed take on SEA, if you ever have the time and desire to expand on your post.

Take care,
Martin

[Bill Moore]

While their are continued problems in SE Asia, I think it is a bit extreme to assume that it is the location of the next war. South America and Africa continue to be much closer to a hot war than SE Asia. Parts of SE Asia have suffered from poverty for years (Myanmar, Cambodia, Philippines, etc.), but the situation has not worsened. Thailand, Malysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam (in the initial stages) have experienced economic miracles. Indonesia recently reached a peace setlement in Aech, and they had several recent successes against the JI. Thailand is having some political arrest currently with the situation concerning the PM. That will probably be resolved before the year is over. They also have an insurgency in the south, but it is largely restricted to the south, and it isn't new (the intensity of the fight is new, but not the insurgency). The Philippines continues to suffer from gross corruption, a communist insurgency, large areas of lawlessness, and a Muslim separatist movement, but that has been been standard fare in SE Asia for years. I to would like to hear more on what impending threat you see.

[M. J. Dougherty]

Based on my research and pattern trend analysis, there is significant potential for the next small war to develop in SEA, a region of significant value to U.S. long-term and vital national interests. While not as quick to adapt, JI spent more than 10 years (prior to 9/11) quietly developing strategic and organizational depth. They also fostered the development of a loose and often overlooked alliance of Muslim insurgent groups known Rabatatul Mujahideen that stretches from Bangldesh to the Philippines and Austrailia. Many of the recent fighters captured in Thailand identified themselves as Rabitatul Mujahideen. This has resulted in a slowly rising level of violence that reduces basic human security and increases social angst. The operational objectives of JI are to maintain a level of instability based on ethnic, religious and social instability. One of the more interesting effects of JI attacks is the negative economic impacts they have had on the local and national economies. In one interview, Abu Bakr Bashir identified the Indonesian economy as a primary target of jihadist activities, which once undermined will create a chaotic environment and fracture social cohesion. Violence Futhermore, although a relatively neutral environment, JI wants to shape the strategic environment to a more favorable one by polarizing society into two groups Muslim Indo-Malay and non-Muslim/non Indo-Malays. Indonesia is the key objective of this campaign. While a peace settlement has been reached in Ache, I predict within a year, 18 months at the most, new wave of violence and insurgent activity will break out.

[GorTex6]

Chavez Turns to Iran on Military, Uranium

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is seeking to deepen ties with Iran, with discussions on holding joint military exercises and obtaining uranium, according to Bush administration officials.
Hamas also is talking to Caracas about sending representatives to Venezuela to raise money for the militant group's newly elected Palestinian government.
But relations with another ally, Russia, have soured over a deal in which Moscow is selling 100,000 AK-47s to Venezuela. The South American country was counting on receiving new rifles, but Russia has shipped a number of refurbished models, prompting Caracas to halt the deal, the U.S. sources said.
Mr. Chavez's continuing efforts to cozy up to Iran are of increasing concern inside the Pentagon and State Department.
Mr. Chavez yesterday threatened to expel the U.S. ambassador, after accusing the diplomat of provoking tensions, according to reporters in Caracas. The threat came two days after pro-Chavez demonstrators tossed eggs, fruit and vegetables at Ambassador William Brownfield's car and the State Department warned Venezuela that it faced consequences if it did not protect the U.S. envoy.

[Strickland]

In response to the 77th comment to this thread, reference comment #1 written October 14, 2005.

[GorTex6]

In response to the 77th comment to this thread, reference comment #1 written October 14, 2005.

Just keeping the topic alive (this assumption has been looming in my head since jan/feb 2005-see my views on China)

U.S. aircraft carriers head to Caribbean

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON -- An aircraft carrier strike group moved into the Caribbean this week to begin two months of naval exercises in what the U.S. military hopes will be a show of its commitment to the region.

The deployment by the USS George Washington group will also focus on threats such as drug and human trafficking, according to the Miami-based U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military activities in Latin America.

Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Glueck Jr., the Southern Command's chief of staff, called the tour an "opportunity for us to touch base with our partner countries."

He added: "There's no other symbol of American power like the carrier."

Members of the strike group, led by the nearly 1,100-foot long Nimitz-class carrier, made their first port stops Monday and Tuesday. The USS Stout, a destroyer, stopped in Curacao, while the USS Underwood, a frigate, docked in Cartagena, Colombia.

The military has dismissed allegations by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that it is planning an invasion of his country. But analysts say the show of force sends a signal to Chavez and other Latin American leaders about U.S. strength.

[GorTex6]

Chavez Begins Training Civilian Militia

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez constantly warns Venezuelans a U.S. invasion is imminent.
Now he's begun training a civilian militia as well as the Venezuelan army to resist in the only way possible against a much better-equipped force: by taking to the hills and fighting a guerrilla war.
Supporters of the president, a former paratroop commander, are increasingly taking up his call. Chavez wants 1 million armed men and women in the army reserve, and 150,000 have already joined, surpassing the regular military's force of 100,000. Now Venezuelans are also organizing neighborhood-based militia units for Chavez's Territorial Guard.
Critics of Chavez say the real goal of the mobilization is to create the means to suppress internal dissent and defend Chavez's presidency at all costs. Thousands of Territorial Guard volunteers _ housewives, students, construction workers _ are undergoing training, earning $7.45 per session.