Asian Times: The US and that 'other' axis

[bpilgrim]

Jun 9, 2005
By Jephraim P Gundzik

Beijing's increasingly close ties with Moscow and Tehran will thwart Washington's foreign policy goal of expanding US security footholds in the Middle East, Central Asia and Asia. However, the primacy of economic stability will most likely prevent a proxy-style military confrontation, in Iran or North Korea, between China and the US.

Threat to 'axis of evil' unwinds in Baghdad (D'oh!)
In January 2002 during his State of the Union address to the US congress, President George W Bush outlined his administration's primary foreign policy goal as preventing "regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction". Bush went on to specifically name Iraq, Iran and North Korea as state sponsors of terrorism, infamously dubbing this group the "axis of evil". After failing to gather multilateral support in the United Nation, Bush declared war on Iraq.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, Beijing has worked feverishly to strengthen its ties with Moscow and Teheran in an apparent effort to prevent US military action against the remaining "axis of evil" members, Iran and North Korea. In addition to recent massive energy deals with Teheran, which place Iran in China's security web, both Beijing and Moscow have accelerated the transfer of missile technology to Teheran, while selling the Islamic republic increasingly sophisticated military equipment.

Armed with a vast array of anti-ship and long-range missiles, Iran can target US troop positions throughout the Middle East and strike US Navy ships. Iran can also use its weapons to blockade the Straits of Hormuz through which one-third of the world's traded oil is shipped. With the help of Beijing and Moscow, Teheran is becoming an increasingly unappealing military target for the US.

more...
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/GF09Ad08.html

we are getting our a$$es kicked, thanks to the neoCONs

peace

[bemildred]

1. Stupidity is it's own reward.

There is a solution to every problem; neat, simple, and wrong.

[bpilgrim]

16. kick

peace

[bpilgrim]

19. kick

peace

[oblivious]

2. India, Russia, China, Germany, Italy, France, Pakistan, Venezuela

Iran's got some formidible trading partners and trade and investment is soaring. They have reason to be confident.

[Rex]

3. So Iran becomes China's Israel?

Arm it with nukes and dare the neighbors to blink?

[Supersedeas]

9. whoa...scary thought...that one!!

[teryang]

4. The US military strategy in Asia is doomed because it is...

...unsustainable militarily and economically.

We are a seapower. Projecting power onto the Asian mainland is a harebrained Air Force idea which maintains that "bases" far inland in Asia (sustained by air logistics/power) are akin to islands or ports in Naval strategy. This misguided brained notion is supported by aerospace defense contractors and the energy lobby. Air transport is inadequate to support tactically sustainable conflicts in inland Asia. In other words in a real showdown, these bases are doomed.

The northeastern establishment elites who made their initial fortunes trading with and exploiting Asia in the 19th Century buy off on insipid notions of the minimal amounts of power projection capability being necessary for the "great game." They forget that seapower or "gunboat diplomacy" sustained this effort, which ultimately failed when challenged on the ground. The civil war in Russia, the retreat of the Chinese Nationalists off the mainland, and McArthur's embarrassing loss to the Chinese in the Korean conflict are all examples of western inability to project militarily dominant power onto the mainland. Air power projection and the associated bizarre theories of full spectrum dominance and Army lite won't change the verdict of history.

I predicted one full year before Iraq was invaded that our national security posture would be seriously degraded as a result of the invasion. Predictably, it has been.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. that was one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen on this subject

thanks.


I think your analysis is spot on. The part I don't get is that, at least below the top level, the administration is full of really smart people who are capable of doing the same analysis, who are at least aware that the scenario you lay must be considered a likely one. My point is that there have to be quite a few insiders who are aware that we are driving full speed off a very large cliff. You would think that more than the one or two (Wilson, 'anonymous', Clarke) would actually speak up?

[sweetheart]

6. Its "bloody nose diplomacy"

The air bases are only useful outside "hot" war. Any hot war that
would assault such bases, would open the door to nuclear war, and the
bases are part of 20th century MAD, not 19th century gunboat thinking.
So to attack the new US manigot line leaves 2 options, covert attacks
on perhaps 1 or 2 bases, which will gather retaliation and increased
police attacks from the other bases; or over attacks on the whole base
chain, in which case, its a forward position write-off in a hot war,
and the enemey has wasted a full volley, inviting retaliation on its
home soil and the USA has not been hit on its home soil.

Its SAD "Singularly Assured Destruction", as any lost bases will be
swept under the carpet of necessary war losses. Its a police state
strategy, much like the frontier army camps that fought the american
native peoples in to the dirt.

[The Stranger]

13. Good points, except that the police state had hundreds of thousands

of immigrants to settle on the dirt into which they had driven the native peoples. Not seeming to be the case, here.

[sweetheart]

14. now we're settling hundreds of thousands of dollars...

in pipelines and oil extraction equiptment for the corprate congress.
Indeed its moved on from a people-centric model to a corporate-centric
one.

It is the old "facts on the ground" model. The bases are outposts of
american empire and they create a power-projection to threaten and
impose force, even if it is more imaginary than real. Nobody tells,
but how many nuclear weapons are stored at those bases, and how many
could be shifted there in 1 weeks notice? Its the old MX missile game
except instead of bunkers its bases, that an opponent does not know
which base has the capability it seeks to destroy, and only an
overwhelming power can threaten the lot, something the very PNAC
strategy is purposefully attempting to disable.

As another poster said, "BRIC". The only way is to create an overwhelmingly
large and cooperative opposing power that can, in real terms, match
the power being projected on to THEIR continent. Then, they need only
apply pressure, no war, just pressure to make the base network
economically and strategically unsustainable.

[The Stranger]

17. Fascinating!

sweetheart, are you female?

(Single?)

[sweetheart]

18. I'm a brain attached to wires...

in a cryogenic capsule in a trench 2 miles under the pacific ocean.
My neurons are fed with a life sustaining solution and my optical nerves
are connected to search engine technology that allows me to "see" the
whole internet at will, and use what used to the nerves that controlled
my body, to type what appear to be keystrokes.

I'm one of the first of a new generation of embedded bloggers that will
serve future generations as the living core of the internet, as the
"living" body-attached brains are increasingly killed off by war and
strife amongst the living.

And, even though the feelings are far removed, in this dark tomblike
brain-feeding chamber, i still love dogs. :-)

[The Stranger]

20. Oh, how dreamy . . .

:loveya:

[bpilgrim]

7. BRIC is doing to US what we did to the BEAR and the neoCONs are too

ARROGANT to see

peace

[oblivious]

10. What is BRIC?

[bpilgrim]

11. Brazil, Russia, India, China n/t

peace

[bemildred]

8. Props.

:thumbsup:

[The Stranger]

12. Analyze the current situation in Afghanistan, how it is different

and how it illustrates your points.

[teryang]

15. I haven't really evaluated Afghanistan

Because it is so remote, the logistics train must be virtually dependent on air. For this reason only insignificant levels of tactical forces can operate there because of negative leverage of movement costs.

With the limited ground lines of communcation, small units must be pursued into trackless elevated wastelands where a western mobile attacking force is rendered further ineffective. Dug into the mountains, guerilla forces are relatively immune from air attack and can evade and harrass conventional forces indefinitely, especially with border havens. Thus the search for the technological cure all, the "bunker buster."

Chessboard theorists mistakenly assume that Afghanistan has a keystone or pivotal value. In fact, any serious evaluation of balance of power in central Asis would conclude that it is Pakistan which has this vital geopolitical role. Afghanistan is a place to hide in or escape from. It is not a strategic jumping off point. It has no infrastructure. A few air bases can't change this.