Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
My concern, especially in light of some of the discussions on this board, is that such a strategy might be risk free.

For example, 20% (if I recall correctly) of Nigerian oil production is unavailable due to "insurgent" (or whatever we want to call it) activity. Now assume that a near peer attempts to foment the same in other locations (say Indonesia). The investment in financing and weaponry is tiny, the impact is large, and any attempt at intervention by the US will be met with considerable international and domestic hostility.

Similar actions could be carried out with food distribution. Or, as another example, deliberately releasing a virus, then interfering with medical relief. Simply providing support to movements such as FARC or Sendero Luminoso sufficient to destabilize the government would work.

The point I was driving at, is that a near peer doesn't have to challenge us in a conventional war. A series of LICs scattered around the world, with the near certainty of international and domestic opposition to armed response, would eventually bleed us into "defeat."
JW,

For the most part I concur with most of what you propose... Certainly another competitor could adopt such a strategy (near peer or otherwise), and this would cause us and others significant challenges.

I think this example falls apart when you expand the scenario to the point of threatening national sovereignty/cause great harm to US... Any competitor that harms the US economy in such a way also harms the global economy... The hew and cry of the globalized world would be great and a coalition of the pissed off would form.

Now if you use this same strategy as a non-peer competitor/super empowered individual/group you stand a better chance of drawing western powers into a series of prolonged/resource draining expeditions.

Live well and row