The energyplay rant of the week - Ralph Peters is an interesting guy. I believe he represents the part of the mainstream military based strategic thinking. Not the middle of the mainstream, but a somewhat "hawkish" or realist part of the mainstream. I don't think he is alway interventionist.
By the way, there is an article in Harper's which says that "Military Historians at U.S. Military academies were asked not to talk to the press about the the History of Soviet activites in Afghanistan "
The administration and the "Foreign Policy Establishment" are keeping a VERY tight lid on the decsion making -
I can see two major reasons for this -
1) There may be some evidence that OBL / Iraq etc. have a terror weapon, such as a suitcase nuke, radiological weapon, biological weapon, or other surprises in store.
2) This is a littlemore elaborate so bear with me. There is a spectrum of conducting war against -
a) bin Laden (an individual)
b) al Queda (an organizatioon)
c) terrorist organizations in general (war against terrorists)
d) war against terrorist and their financing & training capabilities in Islamic nations
e) war against the military and force projection
capbilities of aggresive Islamic nations and supporters of terrorism
f) war against certain aggresive, anti-Western forms of Islam
g) war against aggresive or threatening Islamic states
h) war against all anti-Western Islamic states
i) war against all Islamic states
The president and every has announces we are doing (c) war aginst terrorists, with a little bit of (d) hitting financing & training. I think Ralph Peters is arguing for (f) or (g).
I think the reality is that current policy is around (e) - we are going to reduce the capability of certain Islamic nations to make trouble. This is likely to include an attempt to de-nuke Pakistan. Pull Syria into some kind of alliance with Turkey (and against Iraq), launch some specific strikes at Somalia, push the Saudis to stop funding radicals and rein in theire mullahs , AND...
Possibly launch a "war on Opec" with the Russian's help, to kill Islam's funding source. This would mean a BIG PUSH on fuel cells, Arctic oil, maybe even a Kyoto carbon tax wtih little thrid world exemptions. Saudi Arabia can pump at under $2.00 a barrell, but they need the extra $18 to pay for their welfare state and all the mischief they are funding. An under $10 oil price will send a message, and make the Saudis have to chose between domestic tranquility and funding Wahabism in Indonesia.
End results of these actions are that most of the Islamic countries will be a lot poorer, and have MUCH less influence in the world without the "oil weapon" or excess oil funds. U.S. oil companies & oil staes like Texas will be hurt, and the cost of these wars will liklely weaken the U.S. dollar and slow the long term growth of the U.S. economy. Lower oil prices will tend to help the world economy, including the U.S. however.
These options are NOT being publically discussed - all we will see are "leaks" and article by peole who are half inside / half outside, like Ralph Peters. His articel may also represent some internal power struggle on policy.
By the way, recently Donald Rumsfeld said the war on terrorism would be like a new Cold War. This was under reported.
Sorry for the long rant, I think we have very big, hidden decsions happening. |
