Next Small War

[Strickland]

If Daniel Ortega is successful in assuming control/power in Nicaragua, and then seeks a military/political/economic alliance with Venezuela and Cuba, it is likely the US would become an active interested party. This alliance would further destabilize Mexico, and potentially emboldened Chavez to seek an expanded role and intervention in Colombia and Brazil. All of this would be intolerable to US interets.

[DDilegge]

That said - Castro's death will be a wild card in this equation and most certainly draw our attention to Cuba. Anyone want to dare a call on this scenario?

[NDD]

Couple of observations from the TAOR:
1. Chavez and Colombia - he wouldn't dare and there is no way to get a foothold. The Colombians will go the other way just because he is Venezuelan. Colombia has made tremendous progress in the last 4 years - unfortunately, the reporting of it is being lost in the bigger global picture. The ROI is paying huge dividends, but there is an election on the horizon and all that could change with one stuffing of the ballot box. The next step in Colombia is to either re-elect Uribe or elect someone just like him, there are several candidates. I never thought I would say it, but Colombia is on the fast track to becoming the most stable democracy in the region.
2. Brazil will never fall into a Chavez or Ortega-led fold. Brazil isn't really a Latin country and they are looking for a seat at the Big Table, not regional coalitions.
3. Personally, I see Mexico in the same boat as Brazil. What happens in the US has a far larger impact on Mexico than anything in Central or South America.
4. South America does not follow Central America or the Carribean's lead. Case in point - Che's foco fiasco.

Much more concerning to me is Chavez' new love for ME shady characters and Venezuela's membership in OPEC. If Chavez gets desperate enough, I doubt he will hesitate to swing even further that way for help. And we've all seen what happens when you let the AQ virus in.

The tri-border area is also concerning, mostly due to a complete lack of any real state presence.

If Ortega does re-gain control, I think he will be mostly a nuisance, much like Chavez. And like Chavez, the risk of him looking to the ME for support could become real.

I would hope that even idiots like Ortega and Chavez could see what will happen to them if it comes to pass.

[NDD]

As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...

[aktarian]

As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...

Insurgency in one of the largest oil exporters and state that lies at Hormuz Straits would be a bad thing. Specially since shi'ias in Gulf Arabs could get drawn in.

[NDD]

Insurgency in one of the largest oil exporters and state that lies at Hormuz Straits would be a bad thing. Specially since shi'ias in Gulf Arabs could get drawn in.

Another 30 years of their antics would be a worse thing. Just my opinion and my dream.

Largest oil exporters to whom?

[Strickland]

We should remember that the US is largely responsible for the Iranian situation due to its role in the overthrow or Mossadeq, and support of the Shah.

[aktarian]

Another 30 years of their antics would be a worse thing. Just my opinion and my dream.

A state is more responsive to threats and can be influenced by other means (economics mostly) than some non-stae group. And stable state has an interest in long term development while country in anarchy doesn't.

Largest oil exporters to whom?

Globaly. If they stop exports (or limit them) there will be shortage of oil on market which will drive prices up, including for US.

[NDD]

We should remember that the US is largely responsible for the Iranian situation due to its role in the overthrow or Mossadeq, and support of the Shah.

Negative, the Brits did that. Yes, we helped, but it was mostly them. And that is what happens when you try to nationalize somebody elses hard work.

I don't think anything would have turned out much different if he had remained in power. The Islamists would have come for him eventually.

[NDD]

A state is more responsive to threats and can be influenced by other means (economics mostly) than some non-stae group. And stable state has an interest in long term development while country in anarchy doesn't.



Globaly. If they stop exports (or limit them) there will be shortage of oil on market which will drive prices up, including for US.

I am not advocating threatening an insurgent group in Iran - I am advocating supporting them.

Yes, prices would go up short term. In the medium/long term, Iran cannot afford not to sell. I doubt they have been saving for a rainy day.

I am all for destabilizing the ME with a very few exceptions. It never has been all that stable anyway and the status quo gets a lot of people killed.

There are rooms that simply cannot be cleared. Sometimes you have to throw a grenade in and close the door and move on.

[aktarian]

I am not advocating threatening an insurgent group in Iran - I am advocating supporting them.

That will lead to civil war which woun't be over soon. Unlike Taliban and Saddam Iranian mullahs aren't as hated as those two were. They are unpopular but not hated so much. So they could count on support of parts of population, specially if people see this civil war as orchestrated from outside.

Yes, prices would go up short term. In the medium/long term, Iran cannot afford not to sell. I doubt they have been saving for a rainy day.

It isn't necessary that they wouldn't want to sell, it could be that they couldn't. Iranian oil infrastructure would be damaged. Either in fighting itself or loosing side would destroy as much as they could out of spite. Short term disaster, medium term bad thing and who knows about long term.

I am all for destabilizing the ME with a very few exceptions. It never has been all that stable anyway and the status quo gets a lot of people killed.

And if you destabilise it can you be sure people friendly to you will come on top? Say you topple Saudi regime. Are you sure young, pro-western factions will come on top? It can be that even worse regime will come out.

Or do your eally want shaking up Bahrain so that majority shi'ia gets in power? So that Iranains might get foot in another door?

You know, democracy is good concept but sometimes it brings up somebody you don't like. Just ask Algerians.

There are rooms that simply cannot be cleared. Sometimes you have to throw a grenade in and close the door and move on.

I think that if you want a true change you have to let people do it themselves. Everything that is put in from outside runs the risk of rejection. Oh it works sometimes, but not most of the times. set up conditions for it but then let the people do it themselves.

[NDD]

Everything you say are indeed very possible scenarios. And then again there are many others.

Sometimes you have to engage and see what happens.

[zenpundit]

For those interested, two highly respected military thinkers Thomas P.M. Barnett and John Robb are engaged in a public debate on their blogs over Robb's Iraq op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q2FV6ggQ3CYA.F

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblo...s2/002471.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...ensource_.html

Start of a discussion between 4GW and PNM camps. I have a thread started on my blog for comments as well.

[aktarian]

Everything you say are indeed very possible scenarios. And then again there are many others.

Sometimes you have to engage and see what happens.

Starting a war and hoping for the best doesn't sound like a good strategy. you should prepare for the worst case scenario and expect things could go evn worse than that.

Regarding Iran best policy is not to meddle and let things change by itself. Put in checks so that regime can't do much damage and be prepared to deal with new generations without too much focus on the past. If change comes from within it will be much more comprehensive and accepted by population than anything imposed from outside.

[NDD]

For those interested, two highly respected military thinkers Thomas P.M. Barnett and John Robb are engaged in a public debate on their blogs over Robb's Iraq op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q2FV6ggQ3CYA.F

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblo...s2/002471.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...ensource_.html

Start of a discussion between 4GW and PNM camps. I have a thread started on my blog for comments as well.

Thanks for the links!

[NDD]

Starting a war and hoping for the best doesn't sound like a good strategy. you should prepare for the worst case scenario and expect things could go evn worse than that.

Regarding Iran best policy is not to meddle and let things change by itself. Put in checks so that regime can't do much damage and be prepared to deal with new generations without too much focus on the past. If change comes from within it will be much more comprehensive and accepted by population than anything imposed from outside.

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

[NDD]

I couldn't disagree more with John Robb if I tried.

[CPTAUSRET]

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

I am with NDD, on this one.

Terry

[M. J. Dougherty]

ALCON,

It is my believe that the growing trend in insurgent campaign (shor/mid-term objectives) strategies is to generate as much chaos and anarchy as possible. By creating an environment of "intractable conflict" insurgents are capable of strategically deterring intervention into "lawless areas." While the long-term objective remain control or dominant influence over people, territory & resources, the near term imperative requires insurgents to pre-empt foreign intervention by more powerful states.

In regards to ensuring friendly power acends to control of a new and emerging state, it is risky option. However, the one lesson that insurgent groups have learned is that they cannot compete with powerful organized states with overwhelming strategic (economic & military resource with superior information dissemination /control) capabilities.

If one looks at the various conflicts in South & SE Asia, they do not seem to make too much sense, particularly with respect to the radom patterns of violence. But when viewed in the context of destablizing societies, particularly in Indonesia, and exasperating ethnic, religious, social or economic tensions, there is some evidence fo insurgent intent to bring down the government rather than overthrow it.

[aktarian]

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Well, then you need to put some teeth in your attempts.

And I believe that Iranian regime is realistic. I don't think they will start nuking the area as soon as they get nukes so even if they get nuke they will be responsible with it and be subject to detterance.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that if I wish that US would start taking more active role in Europe in 1939 instead of going to war in 1941? If so it's difference between meddling in internal affairs (such as starting wars) and making an alliance with state.