World War Five?

When the War on Terror was first declared, many knowledgable military people referred to it as "World War IV" (World War III having been the long hot/cold struggle of the Cold War).

Each of the World Wars the United States has been involved in were necessary, "just" wars. We won World War I, World War II, World War III, and we're trying very hard to win World War IV, though "loyalty issues" back home are making this more of a struggle than it should be.

And, just to establish -- Iraq is a just and necessary part of the War on Terror. They were clearly our enemies, we had every reason to believe they still had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and they had proven willing to use terrorism against the United States (if you doubt this, see specific citations in a previous post).

We should have won in Iraq some time ago, but domestic opposition sufficiently delayed and obstructed the US military effort to have caused delays which eventually turned into a tug of war with what would otherwise have been a lackluster enemy.

But, largely because of the troubles back home, the War on Terror in mid-2007 seems like it could potentially spiral out of control due to a variety of worrisome geopolitical considerations.

First, if you think most of the major powers of the world do anything for altruistic reasons, or because they respect some theoretical international law as sacred, quit kidding yourself. The US and Britain, with a scattered few other examples, are the only countries which have ever done that, and even those exceptions are inconsistent.

Consider that France, Germany (pre-Merkel) and Russia all opposed the United States action against Iraq not because they preferred an international response. They did so because they profited from having Saddam Hussein in power AND -- of key importance -- they saw an opportunity to use the situation to weaken the United States' position on the world stage, and thereby improve their own power standing.

If you doubt this, notice that anytime the US wished to force anybody -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. -- into compliance with international conventions, key countries like Russia, France, China, etc. all dragged their feet and did anything they could to stymie the US efforts. These countries -- some call them "friends" -- enjoy seeing the US squirm.

Because the US has been obstructed (by these powers and by liberals at home) from winning in Iraq, a certain confluence of worrisome factors has come to be:

1) Sunni, Shia and al-Qaeda terrorists have us hopping from foot to foot in parts of Iraq.

2) They are being aided by Iran (and probably Syria), and Iran's nuclear ambitions threaten to draw either the US or Israel or both into either a limited or massive airstrike which will open a broader war with Iran.

3) As realistically described in the World Tribune Monday, unrest in Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and Iran could escalate to a multi-front Arab-Israeli war this summer between a nuclear-armed Israel and a potentially nuclear-armed Iran and its surrogates in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.

4) Any war involving Israel would certainly draw the majority of the Middle East, including the United States and allied troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan) into a regional conflict with nuclear potential (although the nuclear aspect isn't especially likely until/unless a capable country becomes desperate).

5) Even the Iranian aid to terrorists against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has the potential to blow up into a regional conflict involving war between the US and Iran and possibly including Syria and Israel.

I am a student of history, and in my opinion the most fascinating period of modern history is the 1930s -- just prior to the conflagration of World War II, when the scene was being set with countless contributing factors feeding on each other and driving the world inexorably to war.

The mood today, in mid-2007, feels much like the late 1930s must have felt.

And that's just World War Four! But, just like World War II started with regional conflicts in China, Spain & Finland, today's conflict in the Middle East could easily widen into a broader, literally worldwide war. In fact, it's almost certain, once a regional conflict develops, that these countries will take whatever opportunities they have. Or, they may just wait for other players to exhaust us, then reap the benefits against us later.

Competing superpowers -- the US, Russia, China -- must watch for advantage. They wait and scheme so that opportunities arise, and the time is right to strike and achieve dominance over their enemies.

As has become quite clear in recent years, both Russia and China consider the United States to be a rival, at best. An enemy, at worst. We stand in the way of their geopolitical aspirations, and they want out of the box they were left in after the Cold War.

Both Russia and China, our nuclear-armed rivals, have been employing proxies and "gaming" other conflicts to undermine the US' world situation.

The Middle East is rife with examples, from Chinese arms sales to Iran (recently confirmed in a Bill Gertz article in the Washington Times) to Russian arms shipments to Fatah (the Palestinian Authority, which ironically is our more MODERATE enemy in the Mideast!).

But China and Russia have both been playing for time with North Korea, drawing out US negotiations with Kim Jong Il to tie us down there, too.

And China and Russia have been actively encouraging Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela, in his demagoguery against the US. Major Russian arms sales to Venezuela make them a regional player in the American hemisphere, and they will likely have support from radicalized populations nearby as well as from Cuba and other frightened governments who are nevertheless happy to feel some form of status in being associated with him.

If any of these conflicts outside of Iraq go hot, there is an opportunity presented to Russia and China where they must decide if it's "their hour" or not. Likely, they will wait to see how things go, play an aloof, two-faced game, and if they see the United States in a particularly vulnerable position, then they will feel compelled by geopolitical realities to strike.

As in World War II, "interested" countries in tense situations are likely to decide that their best interests are served by military conflict on their terms.

Ironically, the stupid Democrat assaults upon the Bush Administration for the past several years -- claiming that we can't afford to be tied down in Iraq because there are more important conflicts to be ready for -- have become a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Now we DO have other major conflicts looming, and because of what I believe qualifies as treason in the ranks of the "loyal opposition" in the USA, the United States may be poised to be in a fight for its very existance in a World War V that will pit the US against the World.

Pray hard.

Ed

The Case for the War On Terror

I post comments in many different fora, and sometimes I will re-post here things I have posted elsewhere. This particular post is a response to criticism of the War on Terror and, specifically, a response to someone else's contention that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. I apologize if it is somewhat rambling -- I'm responding to several contentions at once -- but I believe it is reasonably comprehensive, which is a good way to lead into what I'm sure will be further discussion of Iraq and the War on Terror on this blog.

My Post:

The evidence supports increasing connections between terrorists and state governments.

Implicated by the evidence include: Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, N.Korea, Pakistan, Libya and Saudi Arabia to one degree or another.

Someone earlier mentioned the ISI -- that's the Pakistani intelligence service which basically set up the Taliban puppet government in Afghanistan which was later suborned and more or less taken over by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives. The ISI had a life of its own to the extent which Pres. Musharraf allowed up until the point sometime in September 2001 when US diplomats approached him and said either you can be our enemy and we will dismantle your government or you can desist in all support of terrorists, collar and manage the ISI, and become an ally in the US-led War on Terror. Given this choice, Musharraf "chose wisely."

We have seen terrorist groups exist for decades, without much accomplishing anything but a few dead soldiers and/or civilians. But with the advent of state supported terrorism, the terrorists have vastly increased their capabilities. Part of it is the funding. But more importantly, is bases. The terrorists get protected havens from which to plan and train for attacks, and then to retreat to when the deeds were done.

For this, Sudan, Somalia (whose government didn't really exist for a decade-or-two until last week), and Afghanistan were particularly useful, and northern Iraq also played a part. Osama bin Laden basically moved into anarchic situations with little or no operating governments, and took over the existing infrastructure -- trading chaos for order on his terms. He used these shell-governments like the Taliban to mask and support his buildup of terrorist schemes, several of which succeeded in being more successful than any previous terrorist attacks, a few of which were defeated, but which culminated in 9/11.

While bin Laden used these geographic locations as his base, the "state support" for his operations came from a loosely defined cabal which included several of the aforementioned governments. Proving which ones is difficult. Of these governments supporting anti-US terrorism, one of the most active was Iran. There is also some evidence that Iraq either directly or tacitly supported and or tolerated the terrorists who were working to undermine Saddam's declared enemy the United States.

We know from the UN that Iraq had WMDs at some point. There was never ay evidence that they were destroyed en masse. Inspectors believed that they still existed as late as 2003, but their efforts to prove this were foiled by constant interference by the Iraqi government (in direct violation of several UN resolutions).

There was also an attempted attack, in 2004 or 2005, made by terrorists coming out of Syria launched against Amman, Jordan, which was comprised of WMDs which the Syrians have never been known to have in their possession. The Iraqis DID have these WMDs (as catalogued and quantified by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out and/or played with by Saddam's government), which leads one to an obvious assumption that they were originally Iraqi WMDs which were transferred to Syria, and from there to terrorists.

This scenario -- the transfer of WMDs from Iraq to Syria -- is admitted as a possibility by the Duelfer Report, with some evidence cited, and is seemingly borne out by the Amman attack (which was intercepted and defeated en-route, before they could kill an estimated 1,000-10,000 Jordanians).

The whole list of connections between and with terrorist groups, as well as the presumed transfer of WMDs mentioned above all provide a framework for believing there is/was a fairly sophisticated cabalist network of anti-US and/or rogue governments supporting anti-US terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine is basically to treat these governments which support terrorism against the US as if they were responsible for the actions of the terrorists, which -- let's be real -- they are!

Therefore, Iraq, if it had any connections with terrorists (and I and many others believe they had plenty), then they were a valid target in the War on Terror. So, too, are other governments listed here. If we went into Iran tomorrow I'd be all for it. Or Syria.

Afghanistan was the obvious first target in this war against states who support terrorism, and Iraq was the second, primarily because they were the weakest of these states. If internal support had existed to continue the War on Terror, perhaps further steps would have been taken. However, support for the War on Terror today is questionable.

I believe the primary reason the American Public is not behind the War is that these things have not been adequately explained to them. One could blame the Bush Administration for this, and it would be valid to do so, but as responsible is the fact that the American news media drowns out the President's voice with its incessant antiwar drumbeat which crows over and over again about the deaths and risks and despair, and allows no room for hope that something could be accomplished through this war (which, of course, would be much easier without the active participation of the American media in the anti-war effort).