Bear-baiting
_________________The proposed missile shield for Europe, which the U.S. is so magnanimously offering to construct, is not a necessary component of the trumped up Iran/U.S. to-do. Instead, these new missile sites are a provocation to Russia, a front we do not need to open. The Cold War gave us something to do when we weren't otherwise occupied, but we are now otherwise occupied.
Everything is so contrived in Bush's bald-faced, trumped-up marches to war. Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles during war games Wednesday in the Strait of Hormuz, and the White House responded saying the test "was 'completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world' and served to further isolate the country."
Hypocrisy never has hobbled this administration. The U.S. may explode missiles in space, militarizing yet another dimension of man's environment, but that is democracy in action. While the U.S. has vital interests in keeping the Strait and Gulf open to oil traffic, goading Iran does not favor securing that goal.
The U.S. also has a vital interest in protecting Europe, but goading Russia does not facilitate achieving that goal, either. U.S. Gulf policy has destabilized the region and is counterproductive for the attainment of overall Mideast security. Forgetting missile technology for a moment -- let's talk spears.
If Iran wants to disrupt the flow of oil all they have to do is block the Straits, which can be achieved via a number of low-tech means. The Egyptians blocked the Suez Canal with sunken ships. Imagine the consequences to the price and availability of oil on the world market were Iran to undertake such actions.
In fact, this issue of maintaining shipping lines is a world issue, not simply a national concern. Why is the U.S. again playing a High Noon scenario in the region? Any possible Iranian aggression is a United Nations issue. If Bush and Co. talk diplomacy, then let them put their money where their mouths are.
"Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement opposition from Russia, is vital to defending U.S. interests and allies (US and Iran Appear on Collision Course.)"
No hard intelligence has been presented of strategic indicators that Iran intends to attack Europe. Just going on common sense (something in short supply in the U.S. today): Why would an oil exporter attack its best paying customers? In the New World's preferred currency, the Euro, to boot?
That may be the kind of of paranoiac, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot behavior that characterizes the U.S.'s current treatment even of its own citizens via civil rights curtailment. But most people and countries are more pragmatic than that.
Europe is no longer the Old Europe of 1946-66. This Europe has outgrown NATO, as the members have entered into a stronger alliance sans the U.S., the European Union. the military situation will eventually realign to this new reality.
Therefore, if Europe is to be protected from missiles or spears, let the EU nations protect themselves. Doesn't make much sense for the U.S. to be protecting Europe's oil lanes and homeland while the Euro is supplanting the USD on the world market. Their Army's and Air Forces taken as a whole exceed U.S. military capabilities.
Iraq displays this sorry fact nicely, when the U.S. cannot secure a nation in which they are not even fighting an army. The U.S. must stop acting as white knight to the world. the AP article depicts Washington and Tehran as "jousting," but the reality is, neither are knights. They are players with economic interests. In this game, the EU can assume the mantle for their own defense.
The U.S. lacks the assets and funds to protect Europe from a questionable threat.
Labels: european missile shield, iranian missile test firing, nato is superannuated, PWOT, wot
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:39 PM
14 Comments:
the missle defense systems have not yet been tested in anything remotely resembling real world condidtions. one thing we know for certain about them is that they are wholly owned and designed by folks who have a bigtime professional interest in making sure that there is, and remains, a hot conflict threat somewhere in the world.
missle defense systems that have proven their effectiveness like the navy's Phalanx (which is mostly rapid fire conventional artillery) and the vaunted Patriot rocket batteries of the gulf war are mostly scatter gun "golden BB" types of defenses. thing is, if something cheap, mobile, and of technology that is already on the market has a proven capability why then, demand that something of sky higher cost, and unproven effectiveness be installed to the provocation of an essential player in the 'stans and the middle east in general.
quick thought: republican donors need the contracts so that they can become even bigger republican donors. it's going to be last call at the feeding trough pretty damned quick for these guys. some of the finest looting opportunities happen on the way out.
America wants to put an ABM system in Poland so it can protect Europe against Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles. Right... (actually I suspect its a theatrepiece designed to browbeat Russia into scrapping its nuclear arsenal).
MB, try as i may i cannot come up with any reasonable explanations of US actions on the world OR domestic scene.Couple your cmt with Chris Inns observation and that would seem reasonable to use it as a bargaining chip to reduce nucs thru negotiations . But i just can't believe that ANYBODY in our govt is that nuanced.Especially since we show no inclination to reduce our reliance on nucs as a tool of national policy. jim
This kind of crap is what it looks like as the American "Empire" enters its decline. We will froth and foam like cheap soap...as all the bubbles burst. 'Course, they are bursting from the incompetence of running the entire economy for the benefit of the top 5% instead of maintaining a nation-wide vibrancy.
let's have a seance and ask teddy roosevelt what we should do
Doesn't make much sense for the U.S. to be protecting Europe's oil lanes and homeland while the Euro is supplanting the USD on the world market. Their Army's and Air Forces taken as a whole exceed U.S. military capabilities.
It does make sense if you take it as an exercise in the U.S. trying to convince Europe that the U.S. is still necessary and thus should continue to be propped up by European investment and trade.
Besides, the Europeans cannot protect their sea lanes. While taken as a whole they have significant armies and air forces, their naval forces are negligible in terms of being able to project force. They have only one real aircraft carrier capable of carrying real fighters and four "pocket carriers" capable only of carrying Harriers, and the real aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, spends most of its time in drydock getting repaired (which BTW is where it is now, until the end of next year). This makes their surface navies a sitting duck to any OPFOR that has a real air force, capable only of defending their shipping against unorganized piracy since submarines are hardly a way to defend shipping (great for taking out shipping, but worthless for defending shipping against anybody with an air force).
So while the Europeans are certainly capable of local defense of Europe, their lack of ability to project those forces beyond their own borders definitely makes them an "also-ran" in the military game. Note that they have the capacity to increase their ability to project power. The Eurozone is now the world's biggest economy, bigger than the United States, and unlike the United States has not dismantled its industrial infrastructure and shipped it to China. They simply don't have the desire to do so, because they see no benefit to doing so -- especially since the United States provides plenty of force projection capability for their defense in the foreseeable future.
- Badtux the War Geek Penguin
sea power has been the mainstay of american projection of might since the creation of the "great white fleet" in the early 20th century. i don't like pissing contests like "who has more military power" but i must say that u.s. carrier groups and their naval aviation complement are by far superior to anything europe has. add in an air force that maintains intercontinental bomber aircraft and smart missiles and really there is nothing our leaders can't do conventionally. now we must raise the question of whether such a massive material force is appropriate for a world in which old-fashioned naval and air battles will give way to unconventional and small-scale conflicts scattered across the globe.
ARK, here at RAW we've often discussed the projection of power .Yes the US has all the goodies you describe BUT so what- can we afford to continue using multi-million smart bombs to use v. targets that are often unverified and targetted on faulty intel.But my thinking is tactical and you're talking strategic considerations
I still maintain that we cannot afford the weapons of mass insanity that characterize our inventory.Also i believe the EU individual members have capabilities to fight us to a standstill if the need would arise. Forget all the wowie zowie stuff and look at conventional capabilities- it's always infantry divisions that carry the burden of national policy. And where are the US divisions hiding?Where is our industrial base for sustained war? Where the Manpower and infrastructure to train up to general war? Oh yah-and where is the oil and money to do so? jim
i was not suggesting the u.s. try to take europe.
but i insist that AFGHANISTAN on 9/12/2001 would have been a cakewalk with sufficient applied force. very few americans or allies would have died.
yes infantry combat is brutal and horrific but we should all know that afghanistan was a soft target immediately after 9/11 and it would have been no problem to make it softer. collateral damage should not even have entered the equation. all afghans were complicit in accepting taliban rule.
now everything is fucked up because america has become chickenshit of fighting total war, even when our enemies bring it to the streets of manhattan.
let's hope this new russian sabre-rattling is a bluff or else we might have to let them come over, have anal sex with our girlfriends, and run our country so everything can be nationalized like a giant public restroom.
ARK, maybe Afgh.would've been a cakewalk but i view that as irelevent since Taliban and AlQ are 2 distinct entities.They are not the same- who is the threat to America?
It's clear that you do not espouse atk of Europe. That's my baby for argument purposes only.French fries are my favorite American food . jim
Badtux, if my memory seves Nato was a defensive alliance and was not envisioned to project power.My point is that Europe should either provide their own protection or pony up for it.Doesn't Britain have some Naval experience?But they are basically sucking like the US.
I do believe that the EU will wake up and leave Nato and that this is in US interests if they do.Nato is not a strike force for US aggressive actions.This would force US policy makers into realistic policies.
Your analysis of the capability to expand is a key point- they exceed our ability to do so.they have drafts to keep their military viable and possess a industrial base..also they're in a better financial position to do so. jim
so you would suggest conscription and increased defense spending in order to keep with Europans, raniger?
Ark.,
Actually all I'm trying to say is that our policymakers need to adopt some realpolitik in their policies, and that we operate within the framework of international law, recognizing treaties.
I do not mean that we need military competition with Europe. This is just a discussion point to explore the weakness of the argument that we are the sole Superpower.
Ark.,
I've always been an advocate of the draft. We'd have less foolish wars and we'd spread the responsibility for defense across our society.
Post a Comment
<< Home