Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liquid War: Postcard from Pipelineistan
What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.
Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin -- a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.
All geopolitical junkies need a fix. Since the second half of the 1990s, I've been hooked on pipelines. I've crossed the Caspian in an Azeri cargo ship just to follow the $4 billion Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, better known in this chess game by its acronym, BTC, through the Caucasus. (Oh, by the way, the map of Pipelineistan is chicken-scratched with acronyms, so get used to them!)
I've also trekked various of the overlapping modern Silk Roads, or perhaps Silk Pipelines, of possible future energy flows from Shanghai to Istanbul, annotating my own DIY routes for LNG (liquefied natural gas). I used to avidly follow the adventures of that once-but-not-future Sun-King of Central Asia, the now deceased Turkmenbashi or "leader of the Turkmen," Saparmurat Niyazov, head of the immensely gas-rich Republic of Turkmenistan, as if he were a Conradian hero.
In Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan (before it was moved to Astana, in the middle of the middle of nowhere) the locals were puzzled when I expressed an overwhelming urge to drive to that country's oil boomtown Aktau. ("Why? There's nothing there.") Entering the Space Odyssey-style map room at the Russian energy giant Gazprom's headquarters in Moscow -- which digitally details every single pipeline in Eurasia -- or the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)'s corporate HQ in Tehran, with its neat rows of female experts in full chador, was my equivalent of entering Aladdin's cave. And never reading the words "Afghanistan" and "oil" in the same sentence is still a source of endless amusement for me.
Last year, oil cost a king's ransom. This year, it's relatively cheap. But don't be fooled. Price isn't the point here. Like it or not, energy is still what everyone who's anyone wants to get their hands on. So consider this dispatch just the first installment in a long, long tale of some of the moves that have been, or will be, made in the maddeningly complex New Great Game, which goes on unceasingly, no matter what else muscles into the headlines this week.
Forget the mainstream media's obsession with al-Qaeda, Osama "dead or alive" bin Laden, the Taliban -- neo, light or classic -- or that "war on terror," whatever name it goes by. These are diversions compared to the high-stakes, hardcore geopolitical game that follows what flows along the pipelines of the planet.
Who said Pipelineistan couldn't be fun?
Calling Dr. Zbig
In his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski -- realpolitik practitioner extraordinaire and former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, the president who launched the U.S. on its modern energy wars -- laid out in some detail just how to hang on to American "global primacy." Later, his master plan would be duly copied by that lethal bunch of Dr. No's congregated at Bill Kristol's Project for a New American Century (PNAC, in case you'd forgotten the acronym since its website and its followers went down).
For Dr. Zbig, who, like me, gets his fix from Eurasia -- from, that is, thinking big -- it all boils down to fostering the emergence of just the right set of "strategically compatible partners" for Washington in places where energy flows are strongest. This, as he so politely put it back then, should be done to shape "a more cooperative trans-Eurasian security system."
By now, Dr. Zbig -- among whose fans is evidently President Barack Obama -- must have noticed that the Eurasian train which was to deliver the energy goods has been slightly derailed. The Asian part of Eurasia, it seems, begs to differ.
Global financial crisis or not, oil and natural gas are the long-term keys to an inexorable transfer of economic power from the West to Asia. Those who control Pipelineistan -- and despite all the dreaming and planning that's gone on there, it's unlikely to be Washington -- will have the upper hand in whatever's to come, and there's not a terrorist in the world, or even a long war, that can change that.
Energy
expert Michael Klare has been instrumental in identifying the key
vectors in the wild, ongoing global scramble for power over
Pipelineistan. These range from the increasing scarcity (and difficulty
of reaching) primary energy supplies to "the painfully slow development
of energy alternatives." Though you may not have noticed, the first
skirmishes in Pipelineistan's Liquid War are already on, and even in
the worst of economic times, the risk mounts constantly, given the
relentless competition between the West and Asia, be it in the Middle
East, in the Caspian theater, or in African oil-rich states like
Angola, Nigeria and Sudan.
In these early skirmishes of the twenty-first century, China reacted swiftly indeed. Even before the attacks of 9/11, its leaders were formulating a response to what they saw as the reptilian encroachment of the West on the oil and gas lands of Central Asia, especially in the Caspian Sea region. To be specific, in June 2001, its leaders joined with Russia's to form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It's known as the SCO and that's an acronym you should memorize. It's going to be around for a while.
Back then, the SCO's junior members were, tellingly enough, the Stans, the energy-rich former SSRs of the Soviet Union -- Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan -- which the Clinton administration and then the new Bush administration, run by those former energy men, had been eyeing covetously. The organization was to be a multi-layered economic and military regional cooperation society that, as both the Chinese and the Russians saw it, would function as a kind of security blanket around the upper rim of Afghanistan.
Iran is, of course, a crucial energy node of West Asia and that country's leaders, too, would prove no slouches when it came to the New Great Game. It needs at least $200 billion in foreign investment to truly modernize its fabulous oil and gas reserves -- and thus sell much more to the West than U.S.-imposed sanctions now allow. No wonder Iran soon became a target in Washington. No wonder an air assault on that country remains the ultimate wet dream of assorted Likudniks as well as Dick ("Angler") Cheney and his neocon chamberlains and comrades-in-arms. As seen by the elite from Tehran and Delhi to Beijing and Moscow, such a U.S. attack, now likely off the radar screen until at least 2012, would be a war not only against Russia and China, but against the whole project of Asian integration that the SCO is coming to represent.
Global BRIC-a-brac
Meanwhile, as the Obama administration tries to sort out its Iranian, Afghan, and Central Asian policies, Beijing continues to dream of a secure, fast-flowing, energy version of the old Silk Road, extending from the Caspian Basin (the energy-rich Stans plus Iran and Russia) to Xinjiang Province, its Far West.
The SCO has expanded its aims and scope since 2001. Today, Iran, India, and Pakistan enjoy "observer status" in an organization that increasingly aims to control and protect not just regional energy supplies, but Pipelineistan in every direction. This is, of course, the role the Washington ruling elite would like NATO to play across Eurasia. Given that Russia and China expect the SCO to play a similar role across Asia, clashes of various sorts are inevitable.
Ask any relevant expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing and he will tell you that the SCO should be understood as a historically unique alliance of five non-Western civilizations -- Russian, Chinese, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist -- and, because of that, capable of evolving into the basis for a collective security system in Eurasia. That's a thought sure to discomfort classic inside-the-Beltway global strategists like Dr. Zbig and President George H. W. Bush's national security advisor Brent Scowcroft.
According to the view from Beijing, the rising world order of the twenty-first century will be significantly determined by a quadrangle of BRIC countries -- for those of you by now collecting Great Game acronyms, that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- plus the future Islamic triangle of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Add in a unified South America, no longer in thrall to Washington, and you have a global SCO-plus. On the drawing boards, at least, it's a high octane dream.
The key to any of this is a continuing Sino-Russian entente cordiale.
Already in 1999, watching NATO and the United States aggressively expand into the distant Balkans, Beijing identified this new game for what it was: a developing energy war. And at stake were the oil and natural gas reserves of what Americans would soon be calling the "arc of instability," a vast span of lands extending from North Africa to the Chinese border. No less important would be the routes pipelines would take in bringing the energy buried in those lands to the West. Where they would be built, the countries they would cross, would determine much in the world to come. And this was where the empire of U.S. military bases (think, for instance, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo) met Pipelineistan (represented, way back in 1999, by the AMBO pipeline).
AMBO, short for Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation, an entity registered in the U.S., is building a $1.1 billion pipeline, aka "the Trans-Balkan," slated to be finished by 2011. It will bring Caspian oil to the West without taking it through either Russia or Iran. As a pipeline, AMBO fit well into a geopolitical strategy of creating a U.S.-controlled energy-security grid that was first developed by President Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and later by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Behind the idea of that "grid" lay a go-for-broke militarization of an energy corridor that would stretch from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through a series of now independent former SSRs of the Soviet Union to Turkey, and from there into the Balkans (thence on to Europe). It was meant to sabotage the larger energy plans of both Russia and Iran. AMBO itself would bring oil from the Caspian basin to a terminal in the former SSR of Georgia in the Caucasus, and then transport it by tanker through the Black Sea to the Bulgarian port of Burgas, where another pipeline would connect to Macedonia and then to the Albanian port of Vlora.
As for Camp Bondsteel, it was the "enduring" military base that Washington gained from the wars for the remains of Yugoslavia. It would be the largest overseas base the U.S. had built since the Vietnam War. Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) would, with the Army Corps of Engineers, put it up on 400 hectares of farmland near the Macedonian border in southern Kosovo. Think of it as a user-friendly, five-star version of Guantanamo with perks for those stationed there that included Thai massage and loads of junk food. Bondsteel is the Balkan equivalent of a giant immobile aircraft carrier, capable of exercising surveillance not only over the Balkans but also over Turkey and the Black Sea region (considered in the neocon-speak of the Bush years "the new interface" between the "Euro-Atlantic community" and the "Greater Middle East").
How could Russia, China, and Iran not interpret the war in Kosovo, then the invasion of Afghanistan (where Washington had previously tried to pair with the Taliban and encourage the building of another of those avoid-Iran, avoid-Russia pipelines), followed by the invasion of Iraq (that country of vast oil reserves), and finally the recent clash in Georgia (that crucial energy transportation junction) as straightforward wars for Pipelineistan? Though seldom imagined this way in our mainstream media, the Russian and Chinese leaderships saw a stark "continuity" of policy stretching from Bill Clinton's humanitarian imperialism to Bush's Global War on Terror. Blowback, as then Russian President Vladimir Putin himself warned publicly, was inevitable -- but that's another magic-carpet story, another cave to enter another time.
Rainy Night in Georgia
If you want to understand Washington's version of Pipelineistan, you have to start with Mafia-ridden Georgia. Though its army was crushed in its recent war with Russia, Georgia remains crucial to Washington's energy policy in what, by now, has become a genuine arc of instability -- in part because of a continuing obsession with cutting Iran out of the energy flow.
It was around the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, as I pointed out in my book Globalistan in 2007, that American policy congealed. Zbig Brzezinski himself flew into Baku in 1995 as an "energy consultant," less than four years after Azerbaijan became independent, and sold the idea to the Azerbaijani elite. The BTC was to run from the Sangachal Terminal, half-an-hour south of Baku, across neighboring Georgia to the Marine Terminal in the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Now operational, that 1,767-kilometer-long, 44-meter-wide steel serpent straddles no less than six war zones, ongoing or potential: Nagorno-Karabakh (an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan), Chechnya and Dagestan (both embattled regions of Russia), South Ossetia and Abkhazia (on which the 2008 Russia-Georgia war pivoted), and Turkish Kurdistan.
From a purely economic point of view, the BTC made no sense. A "BTK" pipeline, running from Baku through Tehran to Iran's Kharg Island, could have been built for, relatively speaking, next to nothing -- and it would have had the added advantage of bypassing both mafia-corroded Georgia and wobbly Kurdish-populated Eastern Anatolia. That would have been the really cheap way to bring Caspian oil and gas to Europe.
The New Great Game ensured that that was not to be, and much followed from that decision. Even though Moscow never planned to occupy Georgia long-term in its 2008 war, or take over the BTC pipeline that now runs through its territory, Alfa Bank oil and gas analyst Konstantin Batunin pointed out the obvious: by briefly cutting off the BTC oil flow, Russian troops made it all too clear to global investors that Georgia wasn't a reliable energy transit country. In other words, the Russians made a mockery of Zbig's world.
For its part, Azerbaijan was, until recently, the real success story in the U.S. version of Pipelineistan. Advised by Zbig, Bill Clinton literally "stole" Baku from Russia's "near abroad" by promoting the BTC and the wealth that would flow from it. Now, however, with the message of the Russia-Georgia War sinking in, Baku is again allowing itself to be seduced by Russia. To top it off, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev can't stand Georgia's brash President Mikhail Saakashvili. That's hardly surprising. After all, Saakashvili's rash military moves caused Azerbaijan to lose at least $500 million when the BTC was shut down during the war.
Russia's energy seduction blitzkrieg is focused like a laser on Central Asia as well. (We'll talk about it more in the next Pipelineistan installment.) It revolves around offering to buy Kazakh, Uzbek, and Turkmen gas at European prices instead of previous, much lower Russian prices. The Russians, in fact, have offered the same deal to the Azeris: so now, Baku is negotiating a deal involving more capacity for the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline, which makes its way to the Russian borders of the Black Sea, while considering pumping less oil for the BTC.
President Obama needs to understand the dire implications of this. Less Azeri oil on the BTC -- its full capacity is 1 million barrels a day, mostly shipped to Europe -- means the pipeline may go broke, which is exactly what Russia wants.
In Central Asia, some of the biggest stakes revolve around the monster Kashagan oil field in "snow leopard" Kazakhstan, the absolute jewel in the Caspian crown with reserves of as many as 9 billion barrels. As usual in Pipelineistan, it all comes down to which routes will deliver Kashagan's oil to the world after production starts in 2013. This spells, of course, Liquid War. Wily Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev would like to use the Russian-controlled Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) to pump Kashagan crude to the Black Sea.
In this case, the Kazakhs hold all the cards. How oil will flow from Kashagan will decide whether the BTC -- once hyped by Washington as the ultimate Western escape route from dependence on Persian Gulf oil -- lives or dies.
Welcome, then, to Pipelineistan! Whether we like it or not, in good times and bad, it's a reasonable bet that we're all going to be Pipeline tourists. So, go with the flow. Learn the crucial acronyms, keep an eye out for what happens to all those U.S. bases across the oil heartlands of the planet, watch where the pipelines are being built, and do your best to keep tabs on the next set of monster Chinese energy deals and fabulous coups by Russia's Gazprom.
And, while you're at it, consider this just the first postcard sent off from our tour of Pipelineistan. We'll be back (to slightly adapt a quote from the Terminator). Think of this as a door opening onto a future in which what flows where and to whom may turn out to be the most important question on the planet.




49 Comments so far
Show AllIt is abject insanity to continue to plan to use oil, there is no up side to oil, or coal. One could argue an up side to nukes but the downs drown the up.
Why are some people so resistent to using everlasting,clean,peaceful energy?
Only lack of knowledge and imagination or greed would lead one to say it is not possible.
We are building huge photovoltaic arrays in and around New Mexico. Soon you will be buying renewal energy from New Mexico and simultaneously saying it is not possible. Leave the fossils buried and step into the light and wind!
Maybe what is needed is a global war on oil!
Hydrocarbons are the source of life and also its extinction.
pepe is so anti-american it hurts
you notice and his hatred is betrayed by the fact that he never once mentions the copious flow of freedom and democracy the americans bring with them
they don't hate us because we are killing them unmercifully
they don't hate us because we are stealing their resources
or because we are destroying their nations
they hate us for our freedoms and liberties
i thought that bush made that clear when he lied us into the war without end, praise jesus
if there happens to be a drop of oil or gas here and there so be it but pepe pepe pepe it is clearly about freedom and democracy
Khartoum: US bombed targets in Sudan
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:31:11 GMT
Sudan has confirmed reports that the US Air Force conducted a strike against suspected arm smugglers killing scores of people on its soil.
American planes, last January, attacked and bombed an arms convoy which was heading towards Sudan-Egypt borders, the Egyptian Al-Shurooq newspaper said Tuesday.
ma g, and don't forget along with the export of gunship democracy, if you are not for us you are against us. Hallelujah.
"pepe is so anti-american it hurts "
Yeah ... shoot the messenger and the threat goes away. Finally someone in the 'West' decides to publish an article that lays out the scope of the SCO and all we can do is mock it ... of course at our own peril. The SCO will hopefully provide some kind of barrier against NATO-US imperialism. Its time has come and there is no stopping it.
"they hate us for our freedoms and liberties"
yes and glory unto the american god who loves us best because we are not terrorists and torturers, praise the lord
What a great essay!
One additional thought to consider.
9/11 occurred less than a month after the Taliban turned down US requests for the pipeline across Afghanistan.
Oh, and wasn't Karzai the Unocal rep who escorted the Taliban leaders to Houston in August of 2001?
For those of us who have been trying to figure out the whys of US military base locations, duh! Pepe turned on the old 'light-bulb'.
Sioux Rose
Over the course of the past two decades as the logistics of this "great game" got underway, billions were lost in seeking to leverage control of this resource in a very dangerous region of the world. Imagine if, had we not had OIL men in the White House, those same monies had been directed at solar, wind power, biofuels, and who knows, with the right fiscal incentives to the best universities, the next Edison out there (or Einstein) might have come up with an energy concept that has yet to be employed. No one knew about electricity until one luminous individual "got it." Same with nuclear power, albeit consisting of letting loose a dark god, and likely "the next" massive energy concept & system await being harnessed.
Would a Bill Gates or Soros establish such a fund? Instead of pursuing what is not only not ours, but a guarantee to hastening the planet's ecological collapse; how about casting our nets to another side of this equation, and making haste while the SUN shines. It's time that "defense" money spent on fighting for control of these nascent pipelines instead went to developing the NEXT energy systems.
I see the things Gates and Soros do through their foundations - all worthwhile efforts. But it's pretty maddening that they still seem to miss the forest for the trees. It's great to educate kids, and fight aids, but if there's no planet for them to live on... I wish Gates and Soros and Buffett would focus 100% on finding that new energy source (or that one technology that would make oil obsolete). Within a decade, most of the other problems would be solved.
I would have some super physicists examine TESLA's mysterious devises that pulled electricity out of the stratosphere(?) and powered an automoble through a specific arrangement of metal rods in a milkcrate size box on the frontseat.
Can't do that. The Government confiscated all of his papers. Classified.
. . . and destroyed his labs and left him penniless.
"It's time that "defense" money spent on fighting for control of these nascent pipelines instead went to developing the NEXT energy systems."
True, but if people didn't insist that they had to drive around in their own personal 3,000-lb vehicles it would make things a lot less urgent.
Ray Berthiaume
What a delightful idea: possibly someone may come up with an energy source thus far unthoughtof! But I think the physical trauma of Dec. 21, 2012 may shake up anything yet on our menu for the near future.
A new expanded redux of "The Great Game" is absolutely the worst possible thing that could happen to a region that is trying to come to terms with the legacy left by the last installment. Now more than ever, the West needs to back away from harmful energy sources (oil, coal, & nukes) & invest in clean, renewable sources. Unfortunately, there are powerful interests that are determined to milk every possible cent for their own profit before they allow us to move forward. The epithet "traitors to the human race" is appropriate.
Great essay. The New Great Game goes on no matter which party wins. McCain and his Mrs. couldn't get enough of Georgia. But then the dems are no slackers, with Biden playing his bi-partisan part with Hagel. Obama went bipartisan on the issue having been taken under Lugar's wing when he first went to Washington. The one thing either party will not do is give up the Game to put domestic interests first.
I've always wondered how much energy the global quest to control oil takes. It's almost a paradox. We would need a lot less energy if we weren't trying to take resources on the other side of the world. Meanwhile, China is over here taking oil from Cuba. The military usage and the transportation costs alone ratchet up demand. And the now full subordination of our nation to the Enterprise has made a bad joke out of the entire experiment in freedom, making it fitting that the "democracies" we've sponsored in that part of the world have nothing to do with the dignity of the individual and everything to do with exporting a form of government that is essentially organized crime.
Sioux Rose
PITCH FORK: You articulate well the catch-22 implicit to the MIC. In its quest to rule the world, it destroys everything it touches. Were it instead to build creative alternatives, the hells on earth would be reconverted to the intended Gardens.
The last information I gleaned was that China was exploreing off Cuba and had not found any oil and had no contract to pump oil.
I can see the flag of Pipelineistan now:
A field of black, symbolizing the underlying treasure, with a large irregularly shaped deep red blob in the center, symbolizing the bloody cost of the underlying treasure!!
But I could be wrong !
This would solve everything.
Count for me here what would change.
Obama would be a hero to get working ASAP.
This is a 911 call to save Americe
Why is this information only on snopes?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp
This was an excellent essay. Some of the best and most concise coverage of the economic and geopolitical games in that area of the world that I have read in awhile. Kudos to Mr. Escobar.
And what a shame that something of this much importance and filled with so much information doesn't get published in anything mainstream. I thank Asia Times and TomDispatch for publishing it (as well as CD of course), but something like this needs FAR more coverage.
But alas . . .
Ole' to Pepe Escobar......
"Pipelineistan" should be done into a documentary like the Italian, "Zero". But only the Russians and Italians would get to see it....
Some additions to the article: The Taliban were brought to power by the United States...Once installed, they had a verbal agreement with Unocal to build a Pipeline through Afghanistan. Bridas Oil Company of Argentina offerred the Taliban a shorter route and the Taliban signed the contract with Bridas Oil.
OOOpppps, you do not screw an American Company, that is when PNAC was written and that is when the decision to go into Afghanistan and Iraq was made. (The Carter Doctrine)....When the U.S. inserted Hamid Karzai, former director at Unocal,the message was given to all countries, "Do not mess with American Vital Interests!" As with the U.S.S Maine, we are capable of planning and creating "False Flag Attacks" and sacrifice American lives.
Unfortunately, Obama is still listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski and willing to follow the rules of "The Carter Doctrine"
Thank you, Pepe Escobar, for illuminating an issue which is just about as important and as volatile as an issue can get. I think we'd better dig up Professors Fleiscman and Pons and see if they haven't gotten us a little closer to a nuclear fusion dynamic which will make all of this jockying for position moot.
Considering the amount of energy requirements and the need for 100%plus reliability. The activity that would be less able to occur, without OIL, out of all cultural activities in the modern world would be Modern Warfare.
If the United States were to end its dependency on oil, it would only shift its empire building to the next most precious commodities in order to remain the sole world super-power (until China becomes that in 20 years).
Whether it means they take a greater (military) interest in the massacres in Eastern DRC (Where the US supports Rwandan militias on a small scale over the more China-aligned DRC) where the bulk of fighting is over minerals, particularly Coltan in the eastern areas.
Or if they decide that solar or nuclear really is the answer and expand their interest in Australia (yes there are US bases in Australia) for uranium protection/extraction.
Whatever the US want to trade in, they take by force or coersion, refusing to sit at a level bargaining table with the rest of the worlds markets, simply to maintain their power in this religious/ideological war they've been waging for centuries. (US-Mexican wars, Louisiana Purchase, the Middle East, Pipelineistan) it won't end until they are stopped. Perhaps the US will lose the next cold war with Russia-China? Where to then for the US?
Having transfered our industrial base to China, we have left ourselves
defense-less. We have been spending jillions of dollars in Iraq only to have
China move in to buy and take over the oil.
Our best bet is to close up Walmart and re-do our industrial base so that we
can live indepent from "The New World Order", that was promoted by George H W Bush. We must remove our dependence on China if we are to survive. The Clintons and the Bush Families have indentured us to this Communist Country and the
press is asleep at the wheel. Time for Obama to get a wake-up call..
The problem for the United States is that they consume so much energy that they can't possibly keep supply up without outside resources. To keep in control of these resources, they use a mix of force and proxy force (diplomacy).
Unfortunately the resources required by the United States are now competed for by emerging asian markets and the US is being squeezed more and more. Soon it will come to a head and the US will eventually abandon the 'democracy' line and have to declare an all out war for energy resources which in time they will not win.
They may then be forced to sit at the table as an equal player rather than superpower and make drastic concessions.
Unless they invade Venezuela, but they wouldnt be planning that would they? ('anti drug' troops in Colombia and political attacks on the democratically elected President of the country.... doesn't sound like it...)
From this account it is clear that Zbig Brezinsky's Great Game geopolitical strategy was already in motion with the launch of Jimmy Carter's "energy war" and was already known to the Russians and the Chinese prior to 911. And from this account it is clear that the Russians and the Chinese had already taken concret steps to head off the West's potential incursion into their spheres of influence, including their launch of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on June,2001. (Their spheres of influence include the Caucasus, the West and Central Asia.) And yet, and yet Clinton did "Bosnia", "Kosovo", "Bombing of the Chinese Ambassy" etc. And yet, and yet, the Bushites would still blatantly stage a 911 "Pearl Harbour" by their puppets Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to facilitate the march into Iraq and Afghanistan. This kind of daring military initiative right in the 21st Century when we all thought that the previous two world wars had already taught us something is what is really scary. The author's implied prediction for Amegadon in 2012 may turn out to be more than just another journalist's nightmare.
The questions we all must ask now include how likely is President Obama to continue this Clinton-Bush-Doctrine and strategy, and escalate the conflict into an open direct military confrontation with Iran, Russia and China? Are the American-European ruling classes getting desperate and are they being drven into a corner? What will the cornered ruling cleasses of Europe and USA do? What can they do? Can the American and European peoples be persuaded, whether by the stark truth or by cleaver propaganda, to choose war if they were shown how important such a confrontation with Russia and China is to the future of USA and Europe?
I am surprised that the writing of Pepe Escobar has found itself -- AT LAST -- in Commondreams.org
since I have been reading his works and that of others like Henry CK Liu and several others in Asiatimesonline for a long time now.
there people will find really erudite writing that tell DETAILS of what has really been happening. ---and if one pieces them together - coming as they are from entirely different authors -- how things are all linked:
The American Empire -- the "vanguard" of "the west" -- the history of the financial empires over the centuries, erupting into colonialism and monetary shenanigans...
ALL OF THEM ROOTED in western LUST for the treasures and resources of the EAST and "SOUTH".
below is a 2006 article from Asiatimesonline...in the case of a "shooting war" between - say...USA and CHINA...
(recently, to be noted, china has made it expressly clear, it will no LONGER tolerate being bullied or being dictated to by the USA in China's own neighborhood, neither militarily, nor economically, or politically. just as russia has laid down the lines in HER own neighborhood and Iran has likewise done in her neighborhood...and venezuela, brazil....well...everyone gets the idea)....
============
Apr 20, 2006
SPEAKING FREELY
If it comes to a shooting war ...
By Victor N Corpus
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
One could call this article a worst-case scenario for the new American century. Why worst case? Because of the hard lessons from history. The Romans did not consider the worst-case scenario when Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants and routed them; or when Hannibal encircled and annihilated the numerically superior Roman army at the Battle of Cannae.
The French did not consider the worst-case scenario at Dien Bien Phu and when they built the Maginot Line, and the French suffered disastrous defeats. The Americans did not consider the
worst-case scenario at Pearl Harbor or on September 11, and the results were disastrous for the American people. Again, American planners did not consider the worst-case scenario in its latest war
in Iraq, but instead operated on the "best-case scenario", such as considering the Iraq invasion a "cake walk" and that the Iraqi people would be parading in the streets, throwing flowers and welcoming American soldiers as "liberators", only to discover the opposite.
Scenario One: America launches 'preventive war' vs China
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia.
–Paul Wolfowitz, former US deputy secretary of defense and currently president of the World Bank
Consider these snapshots of China:
# Since 1978, China has averaged 9.4% annual GDP growth
# It had a five-fold increase in total output per capita from 1982 to 2002
# It had $61 billion in foreign direct investment in 2004 alone and foreign trade of $851 billion, the third-largest in the world
# The US trade deficit with China exceeded $200 billion in 2005
# China has $750 billion in foreign exchange reserves and is the second-biggest oil importer
# Last year it turned out 442,000 new engineers a year; with 48,000 graduates with master's degrees and 8,000 PhDs annually; compared to only 60,000 new engineers a year in the US.
# China for the first time (2004) surpassed America to export the most technology wares around the world. China enjoyed a $34 billion trade surplus with the US in advanced technology products in 2004 (The Economist, December 17, 2005). In 2005, the surplus increased to $36 billion
# It created 20,000 new manufacturing facilities a year
# It holds $252 billion in US Treasury Bonds (plus $48 billion held by Hong Kong)
# Among the five basic food, energy and industrial commodities –grain and meat, oil and coal and steel –consumption in China has eclipsed that of the US in all but oil.
# China has also gone ahead of the US in the consumption of TV sets, refrigerators and mobile phones
# In 1996, China had 7 million cell phones and the US had 44 million. Now China has more mobile phone users than the US has people.
# China has about $1 trillion in personal savings and a savings rate of close to 50%; U.S. has about $158 billion in personal savings and a savings rate of about 2% (The Wall Street Journal, Nov 19, 2005)
# Shanghai boasts 4,000 skyscrapers – double the number in New York City (The Wall Street Journal, Nov 19, 2005)
# Songbei, Harbin City in north China is building a city as big as New York City
# Goldman Sachs predicts that China will surpass the US economy by 2041.
Before China's economy catches up with America, and before China builds a military machine that can challenge American superpower status and world dominance, America's top strategic planners (Project for the New American Century) decide to launch a "preventive war" against China. As a pretext for this, the US instigates Taiwan to declare independence.
Taiwan declares independence!
China has anticipated and long prepared itself for this event. After observing "Operation Summer Pulse –04" when US aircraft carrier battle groups converged in the waters off China's coast in mid-July through August of 2004, Chinese planners began preparing to face its own worst-case scenario: the possibility of confronting a total of 15 carrier battle groups composed of 12 from America and three from its close British ally. China's strategists refer to its counter-strategy to defeat 15 or more aircraft carrier battle groups as the "assassin's mace" or shashaujian.
After proper coordination with Russia and Iran and activating their previously agreed strategic plan, troops and weapon systems are pre-positioned. China then launches a missile barrage on Taiwan. Command and control nodes, military bases, logistics centers, vital war industries, government centers and air defense installations are simultaneously hit with short and medium range ballistic missiles armed with conventional, anti-radar, thermo baric and electro-magnetic pulse warheads.
At the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command and Control Center, ranking defense officials watch huge electronic monitor screens showing seven US and two British aircraft carrier battle groups converging on the East China Sea with another three US carrier battle groups entering the Persian Gulf, while the remaining two US and one British battle groups remain in the Indian Ocean to serve as a strategic reserve.
As the aircraft carrier battle groups advance, China draws out one of its "trump cards" by leaking to the world media that it is dumping its holdings of US Treasury bonds and shifting to gold and euros.
Meanwhile, strategic planners at NORAD watch with glee as they observe on the screen as monitored by their radar satellites that Chinese surface ships are making a hasty retreat as nine allied carrier battle groups advance toward the Philippine Sea and Chinese waters near Taiwan.
The assassin's mace: China's anti-satellite weapons
Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock as monitor screens suddenly go blank. Then all communication via satellites goes dead. China has drawn its second "trump card" (the assassin's mace) by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded or physically destroyed their hosts.
This is complemented by space mines that maneuver near adversary satellites and explode. Secret Chinese and Russian ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or bring down US and British satellites used for C4ISR (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). And to ensure redundancy and make sure that the adversary C4ISR system is completely "blinded" even temporarily, hundreds of select Chinese and Russian information warriors (hackers) specifically trained to attack their adversary's C4ISR systems simultaneously launch their cyber offensive.
For a few precious minutes, the US and UK advancing carrier battle groups are stunned and blinded by the "mace", ie, a defensive weapon used to temporarily blind a stronger opponent. But the word mace has another meaning; one which is deadlier and used in combination with the first.
A mace can be a spiked war club used in olden times to knock out an opponent. Applied in modern times, the spikes of the assassin's mace refer to currently unstoppable supersonic cruise missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers that are in China's inventory; complemented by equally unstoppable "squall" or SHKVAL rocket torpedoes and regular 65 cm-diameter wake-homing torpedoes, bottom-rising rocket-propelled mines, and "obsolete" warplanes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) firing anti-ship missiles from standoff positions and finally dive-bombing into the heart of the US and UK aircraft carrier armada.
Missile barrage on advancing carrier battle groups
A few seconds after the "blackout", literally hundreds of short and medium-range ballistic missiles (DF7/9/11/15s, DF4s, DF21X/As, some of which are maneuverable) pre-positioned on the Chinese mainland, and stealthy, sea-skimming and highly-accurate cruise missiles (YJ12s, YJ22s, KH31A/Ps, YJ83s, C301s, C802s, SS-N-22s, SS-NX-26/27s, 3M54s & HN3s) delivered from platforms on land, sea and air race toward their respective designated targets at supersonic speed.
Aircraft carriers are allotted a barrage of more than two dozen cruise missiles each, followed by a barrage of short and medium-range ballistic missiles timed to arrive in rapid succession.
Supersonic cruise missiles constitute China's third deadly "trump card" against the US – part of the so-called assassin's mace. These unstoppable cruise missiles may be armed with 440-lb to 750-lb conventional warheads (or 200-kiloton tactical nuclear warheads 10 times stronger than Hiroshima) traveling at more than twice the speed of sound (or faster than a rifle bullet).
The cruise missiles, together with the SRBMs and MRBMs (short and medium-range ballistic missiles) may also be armed with radio frequency weapons that can simulate the electro-magnetic pulse of nuclear explosions to fry computer chips, or fuel-air explosives that can annihilate the personnel in aircraft carriers and battleships without destroying the platforms.
Their effective range varies from less than 100 to 1,800 kilometers from stand-off positions. Delivered by long-range fighter-bombers and submarines, their range can be extended even further. In fact, stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines can deliver such nuclear payloads to the US mainland itself.
No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles
The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China's inventory.
Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do Iran, India and North Korea. These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.
Adding to the problems facing aircraft carriers are the SHKVAL or "squall" rocket torpedoes installed in some Chinese and Russian submarines and surface ships. At 6,000 lbs apiece, these torpedoes travel at 200 knots (or 230 miles per hour) with a range of 7,500 yards guided by autopilot. They are designed to sink aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Again, it is unfortunate for the US and UK to have no known or existing defenses against this new generation of rocket torpedoes.
China's sea mines
Complicating matters for the US aircraft carrier battle groups are the hundreds of hard-to-detect, rocket-propelled, bottom-rising sea mines that are anchored and hidden on the sea bottom covering pre-selected battle sites in the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea designed to home in on submarines and surface ships, particularly aircraft carriers.
These sophisticated sea mines (EM-52s) have been deployed by Chinese and Russian submarines before the missile attack on Taiwan in anticipation of the major event that is to follow.
Finally, in addition to all these asymmetric weapons, the US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups will have to contend with the thousands of "obsolete" Chinese fighter planes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) launching missiles at stand-off positions and finally diving kamikaze-style into the heart of the carrier battle groups.
Chinese and Russian submarines fire their inventory of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and "squall" rocket torpedoes at the aircraft carriers and submarines of the US and UK as the carrier battle groups come within range. As the battle progresses, the Chinese and Russian submarines maneuver to the rear of the carrier battle groups to complete the encirclement.
In less than an hour after launching the saturation barrage of missiles on the US and UK naval armada, all the aircraft carriers and their escorts of cruisers, battleships and several of the accompanying submarines are in flames, sinking or sunk, turning the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea into a modern-day "Battle of Cannae".
Meanwhile, the Chinese fleet that conducted a strategic retreat forms a phalanx along the forward positions off China's coast, ready to augment the hundreds or thousands of land-based long-range surface-to-air missiles of China (SA-10s, SA-15s and SA-20s) with their own short, medium and long-range air defense missile systems.
Applying its long-held military doctrine of "active defense", China also launches simultaneous missile attacks on the forces-in-being and logistics-in-place of the US and its allies in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia and Kyrgyzstan, hitting these US bases with missiles armed with radio frequency weapons, fuel-air explosives and conventional warheads. As another Chinese military doctrine states: "Win victory with one strike."
Chinese and Russian missiles cocked
Both Chinese and Russian inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and the two countries' extensive air defense systems have been coordinated and ready to respond in the event that the US and UK decide to retaliate with a nuclear attack.
In addition, Ranets-E and Rosa-E radio frequency/electro-magnetic pulse systems scattered all along China's coastal cities are on the look-out to neutralize incoming missiles and aircraft that may respond after the attack on the aircraft carrier battle groups. These systems can work in tandem with airborne-based anti-missile laser systems now in China's inventory.
China's trump cards vs the US
China's deadly "trump cards" (ie, the huge holdings of US Treasury bonds, the anti-satellite weapons system, the supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, SRBMs, MRBMs, "squall" rocket torpedoes, sea mines, UCAVs, DF31A and DF41 road-mobile ICBMs, JL2 SLBMs, air defense system, IO/EW/IW, and other RMA weapons) are the key ingredients of the assassin's mace.
China may not possess any of those expensive aircraft carriers of the superpower, but it can wipe out those carrier battle groups with a "single blow" of its assassin's mace or shashaujian –its major tool for conducting asymmetric warfare to defeat the US in a major confrontation over the Taiwan issue or other issues.
The US may possess the most powerful war machine in the world, but it can be defeated by an inferior force by avoiding the superpower's strength and exploiting its weaknesses. Again, an integral part of Chinese doctrine is: "Victory through inferiority over superiority." One famous Chinese strategist, Chang Mengxiong, compared asymmetric warfare to "a Chinese boxer with a keen knowledge of vital body points who can bring a stronger opponent to his knees with a minimum of movement".
The sad part for the American people, particularly the innocent sailors who will be manning the battle groups, is that even if US planners come to realize that the aircraft carrier battle groups (which are the mainstay of the US Navy and the main instrument of US power projection worldwide), have been rendered vulnerable or obsolete by China's assassin's mace.
The US cannot simply change strategy or discard such a weapons system. To change strategy or "retool" would mean wasting hundreds of billions of dollars invested in those highly sophisticated systems. The strong lobbying of influential defense contractors making those systems would make change extremely difficult.
For defense authorities to admit the strategic blunder constitutes an almost insurmountable barrier to a change of strategy. And finally, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs related to those systems may be politically and economically unbearable for any US administration to bear should the program for the aircraft carrier battle groups be scrapped. Because of these factors, America may be stuck with an obsolete system that is too expensive to maintain but will only lose the war for the US when employed in a major conflict.
Meanwhile, on the Middle East Front
On another major front, on previously coordinated signals with China and Russia, Iran lets loose its own barrage of supersonic Granit, Moskit, Brahmos and Yakhont cruise missiles carried by trucks or hidden in man-made tunnels all along the mountainous shoreline of Iran fronting the Persian Gulf.
The three US aircraft carrier groups that entered the Persian Gulf to ensure the unhindered flow of Arab oil are likely to be helpless "sitting ducks" against the bottom-rising sea mines and low-flying, supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles in Iranian hands. In the process, a couple of oil tankers about to exit the Strait of Hormuz are hit with the aid of rocket-propelled sea mines, thus effectively blockading the narrow strait and stopping oil supplies from coming out of the Middle East.
A "weak" nation like China or Iran, without a single aircraft carrier in their respective navies, could thus obliterate the carrier battle groups of a superpower. Here, one can see the hidden and often unnoticed power of asymmetric warfare, which may well spell the end of "gunboat diplomacy" in the not so distant future.
The Central Asian front
On yet another major front in Central Asia, Russian troops lead the other member-countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) into a major offensive against US military bases in Central Asia.
The bases are first subjected to a simultaneous barrage of missiles with fuel-air explosives and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) warheads before they are overrun and occupied by SCO coalition forces. The missile attack on the US bases is followed by a lightning attack by four mechanized armored divisions coming from the Yili Korgas pass of China's Xinjiang province, linking up with Russia's own armored divisions in a pincer offensive against US forces in Central Asia and the Middle East.
America crippled on three major fronts
In just a few hours (or days) after the outbreak of general hostilities, America, the world's lone superpower, finds itself badly crippled militarily in three major regions of the world: East Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.
Impossible? Unfortunately, the answer is no. China now has the know-how and the financial resources to mass-produce hundreds, if not thousands, of Moskit, Yakhont and Granit-type supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and "squall"-type rocket torpedoes against which US and UK aircraft carriers and submarines have no known defense.
Iran, on the other hand, already possesses the same supersonic cruise missiles that can destroy any ship in the Persia Gulf, including aircraft carriers. Russia and China, meanwhile, are operating on familiar grounds close to their territory, compared to the US, which needs to cross the Atlantic and Pacific to replenish troops and logistics.
A geopolitical reality America has to face
An important consideration in any US-China conflict is the geopolitical reality that the US and its allies will be operating on exterior lines, while China will operate on interior lines. This gives China a huge advantage in a major war in Asia against US and allied forces.
Consider the long sea lanes of communication (10,000 kilometers) that the US alliance would be forced to cross each time its forces had to resupply and you get an idea of the huge logistics problem that the US would face in a confrontation with China.
Such lengthy sea lanes of communication (SLOC) are highly vulnerable to a gauntlet of Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush along the route laden with underwater sea mines. This will make transporting personnel and equipment by the US over the Pacific or the Atlantic extremely dangerous and expensive.
Compare this US handicap with troop movement by Chinese troops using heavy-lift aircraft, railways and highways within the China mainland. China's interior lines of communication are shorter and protected, with little chance for enemy interdiction. Chinese troops can concentrate numerically superior forces rapidly at any given point to defeat invading US forces one by one with much shorter and less vulnerable lines of communication.
And in the event that the US forces and their allies are lucky enough to land on the Chinese mainland, they will be faced not only with a conventional People's Liberation Army of more than 2 million, but also with a people's militia conducting asymmetric warfare and a people's war in its teeming millions. US forces and their allies will be like a raging bull charging and goring a hive of killer bees. US forces may be able to set foot in China, but it is highly doubtful if they could come out alive.
Grimmer scenarios
There is a scenario grimmer than described above, however, and that is if strategic planners belonging to that elite group called the Project for the New American Century decide to launch a nuclear "first strike" against China and Russia and risk a mutually-assured destruction: 1)In defense of Taiwan ... or 2) In launching a "preventive war" to stop China from catching up economically and militarily. Or, if China decides to start an offensive against Taiwan with a one-megaton nuclear burst 40 kilometers above the center of the island. Or, if China and Russia decide to arm a number of their short and medium-range ballistic missiles and supersonic cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads in defending themselves against US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups.
Land-attack versions of these supersonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads carried by stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines can also put American coastal cities at great risk to nuclear devastation. Strategic planners must also consider these worst-case possibilities.
Scenario two: America vs a medium power
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region's oil." - Paul Wolfowitz
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan." – Dick Cheney in 1998 as chief executive of a major oil services company
History is replete with vivid examples where a much stronger and larger force has been defeated by a weaker and smaller force. The French were defeated by Vietminh guerrillas in Dien Bien Phu. Soviet Union forces, still a superpower at that time, were defeated in Afghanistan. And another superpower, the United States, was defeated by "ill-clad, ill-fed and ill-armed" Vietcong guerrillas in Vietnam.
Asymmetric warfare
If the US pushes through its plan of world domination, then it should expect all the smaller and weaker countries that do not wish to be pushed around to fight back using asymmetric warfare. This is a form of warfare that allows the weak to fight and defeat a much stronger foe by "attacking the enemy's weakness while avoiding his strengths".
The US, for instance, may possess the most sophisticated weapons system on Earth. It may have the most modern planes, helicopters, ships, guns, precision-guided weapons, sophisticated sensors and command and control systems, but if it cannot see its adversary, if it is fighting a shadowy and "invisible" enemy (like American and British forces are experiencing in Iraq), such advanced and sophisticated weapons systems are rendered useless.
In asymmetric warfare, most of the fighting is conducted at the team level. Thousands of agile and elusive teams consisting of two to five members equipped with man-portable surface-to-air missiles, portable anti-tank guided weapons, sniper rifles, man-portable mortars, anti-tank mines, anti-personnel mines, sea mines, C4 explosives (for making car bombs, booby-traps and improvised explosive devices or IEDs) riding on bicycles and motorcycles and fast boats will make the lives of any invading or occupying forces extremely miserable.
These "invisible" agile teams merge with the population most of the time and come out only when there is a vulnerable target to strike at. Then, they disappear into the shadows. They communicate via runners bringing coded written messages, so there are no electronic signals to track down. They operate semi-autonomously, so there are no centers of gravity that can be targeted.
And since they are indigenous to the area and united with the local people, their human intelligence (humint) is far more superior to that of the invaders. They will also enjoy a tremendous advantage in psychological operations (psyops), for it is much easier to mobilize nationalist sentiments against a foreign occupier than for an aggressor to justify occupation.
Asymmetric warfare may be compared to a fierce lion invading the territory of a school of piranhas; or a king cobra encroaching into a colony of fire ants. The lion may be the king of beasts, mighty and strong, but it is no match against the tiny piranhas in their own territory. The sharp fangs and claws of the lion are rendered useless. The same is true with the cobra's venom. The analogy applies to the French in Dien Bien Phu, the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam and now in Iraq.
Asynchronous warfare
Aside from asymmetric warfare, weak nations fighting the strong can also avail themselves of asynchronous warfare. If a strong nation invades or occupies a weak one, the weak bides its time before striking back. And it strikes at a time and place when and where the adversary least expects.
An example is Iraq. The underground resistance movement in Iraq may recruit Iraqi scientists or sympathetic scientists of other nationalities to infiltrate the US (via the Mexican border, for instance) and manufacture dirty bombs as well as chemical and biological weapons inside the US. Such weapons may be brought to Washington and detonated in or near the US Congress.
They could also hire a private plane, or buy one themselves, and use it to spread biological or chemical weapons they have manufactured in-country over New York or Washington. They can mail letters containing anthrax to key offices of vital services all over the US and paralyze utilities and other government functions nationwide.
Or they can smuggle, say, the components of a hundred portable surface-to-air missiles, assemble them in the US, and employ them simultaneously in all of the major airports in America. Or they can employ those portable surface-to-air missiles to simultaneously target American airlines taking off or landing in different international airports all over the world.
Some major powers may pass on their research on RMA (revolution in military affairs) to the Iraqi resistance to be tested inside the US. These weapons include laser weapons, ultrahigh frequency weapons, ultrasonic wave weapons, stealth weapons, high-powered microwave weapons and electromagnetic guns. They include miniature robot ants that infiltrate computers, stay dormant and then activate on the signal to destroy their hosts. The Iraqi underground could also recruit hackers to work inside and/or outside the US to hack into key US systems.
American crossroad
As the sole superpower, the US stands at a critical crossroad. One road leads to world domination. Using its pre-eminent military war machine without equal, it can strike at any perceived threat, change foreign sovereign regimes at will, grab precious mineral resources anywhere in the world and control local economies with its host of transnational corporations. It can also sabotage the economy of up-coming rivals, or launch preventive wars to preempt prospective competitors and try to defeat them militarily while they are still weak compared to America.
Such a course of action is very tempting, especially to leaders with global ambitions of becoming "Lords of the Earth". But such a road is full of risks and what is planned on paper, as what was done in Iraq, may not turn out as hoped. And such a path will necessarily ignite the outrage of most right-thinking people. America will earn for itself the enmity and hatred of people all over the world.
America had outlined its blueprint for world domination, by force if necessary, in the following documents:
# National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2001
# President George W Bush's speech at the Graduation Ceremony at West Point, June 1, 2002
# Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century, a report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000
# Defense Planning Guidance written by then deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz in February 18, 1992
In these documents, the US outlined some of its new doctrines and policies, such as: preventive war, pre-emptive military action, unilateralism, regime change, acting as the world's constabulary or "cavalry", establishment of military bases and spreading US forces all over the world, control of outer space and the global commons of cyberspace and control of the world's oil resources.
The alternate road, on the other hand, leads to world leadership. The US can choose to use its power, wealth and influence to sincerely do good for the people on this planet. It can lead in easing or obliterating the debt burden of poor nations, or in promoting the spread of quality education through distance learning in remote villages of developing countries.
It can focus in the fight against poverty, or the fight against drugs, or the effort to save the deteriorating environment of planet earth. It can lead the fight against HIV/AIDS, or malaria and other deadly diseases. The whole world is waiting for the US to lead in these important battles.
If the US chooses to focus its huge resources on the latter, I am confident that it will gain the hearts and minds of people all over the world. Then it can be a true world leader. Then it can maintain its preeminent world status. By gaining the world's sympathy and support, terrorism directed against Americans and the US mainland will be greatly minimized. The alternate road, in fact, is the key to defeating the phenomenon of "terrorism" gripping the world today.
Victor N Corpus is a retired brigadier general. He has a master's degree in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. His major assignment while serving in the armed forces of the Philippines was as chief of the intelligence service.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
of course the above assessment was written in 2006 --
at least a year BEFORE the financial institution collapse in the USA...as well as other collapsing industries...
and BEFORE china accumulated "officially" 1.9 Trillion savings held in dollars which "unofficially" is suspected to be as of today actually at least 2.4 Trillion and accelerating despite the financial meltdown globally...
which has prompted china, partly as response, suspectedly, to US criticisms of its "monetary policies" and humanitarian policies by "suggesting" openly to the obama administration that China is "a LITTLE WORRIED about the value of OUR assets in the US treasury and other holdings...we hope the USA will HONOR its commitments to its debts and PROTECTING the VALUE of OUR HOLDINGS".......
and that was BEFORE china began "diversifying" some of its dollar holdings into global investments in resources..including
in the Middle East and Central Asia......
does the USA REALLY want to go to war with china and/or Russia?
by trying to "encircle russia", by trying to "contain china".....
the USA only succeeded in a TECHNONIC SHIFT of making TWO LONG_TIME RIVALS
run to EACH OTHER's ARMS for common security!
the Security Cooperation Organization spanning China, Russia, Central Asia, and perhaps even Iran are the RESULT....
and if the USA REALLY intends to bully its way in those regions -- it is going to meet NOT 280 million Russians ONLY...nor 100 million Central Asians that are very suspicious of american and western designs....but also 1.3 BILLION chinese...........all of whom have VESTED INTERESTS and BIG INVESTMENTS in areas that USA is planning to attack or control in central/middle asia...
in a real shooting war -- guess which country is going to be wiped off the face of the earth before the carnage is over?
it is going to lose that war.
the american planners of empire ought to remember an old INdian Saying from the the subcontinent -- addressed to the west:
"we were here LONG before you were even TRIBES in the west....we will still be here long after your empires are no more".
I don't have time to read all this. Could you summarize in one post.
I'm thinking you may have something worthwhile to say.
additional update by teddy...KYRGYSTAN ...since 2006 (one of the "color revolutions" projects of Condoleeza Rice) - has "flown back" to the russian orbit -- its traditional, historical "cultural kin" -- as expected...did the USA EXPECT such things to HOLD?)
Does anyone else harbor visions of the rule of international law governing a rational and fair allocation of resources and effectively banning the "great games"? Maybe the rule of law simply isn't compatible with liberalism. Maybe only realpolitik is compatible with liberalism. Liberal is how we describe this society, right? As in liberty to pursue the "great games"? Effectively?
Related to the article above -- here is another recent one by pepe escobar (he is a regular writer for Asiatimesonline and actually gets to interview leaders in central asia, as opposed to the washington pundits who like to "dictate" TO the folks around the world from the safety of their boardrooms in the USA)...
================
Mar 5, 2009
THE ROVING EYE
The Obama-Medvedev turbo shuffle
By Pepe Escobar
The President Barack Obama administration urgently needs to do a couple of things: learn to play chess; and watch the DVD of the Godfather saga, especially larger-than-life parts I and II.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev didn't even have to be a good chess player to figure out he was not exactly being presented by Obama with a famous "offer he can't refuse".
In a secret Obama letter, hand-delivered to Medvedev three weeks ago, as the New York Times revealed and the administration confirmed, the US "non-proposal proposal" essentially broke down to this: if you help us get rid of non-existent Iranian nuclear
weapons, we'll get rid of our missile shield which we don't know if it's any good anyway.
Kremlin spokesperson Natalya Timakova reacted as dry as a good martini: the letter had "no concrete proposals and no mutually binding initiatives". In fact, Obama took no less than three months to simply reply to a letter Medvedev sent him shortly after his election on November 4, 2008.
Then the virtual shuffle went turbo. At a news conference following a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero, Medvedev himself diplomatically judged "not constructive" to link the US missile shield with the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, Medvedev is in favor of a "common" missile shield to face "global threats". Next Friday, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has dinner with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva, she can always work her charm and be more specific.
Certainly aware of Medvedev's response, Obama was forced to issue a "non-denial denial". After meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House, Obama said, "The report that was in The New York Times didn't accurately characterize the letter." And then he toed the Bush administration line: "The missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed toward, not Russia, but Iran."
Everyone familiar with the new great game in Eurasia knows that Washington's move to deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic by 2013 amounts, in Moscow's point of view, to a serious threat to Russian national security. According to the former Bush administration - and the Pentagon's - rationale, this move is essential to deter future strikes from "rogue state" Iran. Moscow sees right through it.
As reported by RIA Novosti, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov stressed again on Tuesday, "If the deployment [of a US missile shield] is suspended, we will not start the retaliatory measures we planned." The "measures" mean Moscow deploying Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad, right at the border of Poland and Lithuania, both North Atlantic Treaty Organization members.
That the Obama presidency's strategy boils down to luring Russia to the anti-Iran train is no secret to anyone. The State Department duly leaked what Clinton has just told United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan in her current Middle East trip: "We're under no illusions. Our eyes are wide open on Iran."
Among Obama's neo-liberal realist gang at least Pentagon supremo Robert Gates is trying to exhibit a voice of reason: he told NBC television that Iran is "not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time".
Obama and Medvedev will finally meet in person for the first time on April 2, in London, on the sidelines of what will certainly be a tumultuous Group of 20 meeting discussing the global financial crisis. Russian media have reported that Medvedev has invited Obama to visit Moscow. The date may be announced in London. Obama will have plenty of time to brush up on his Godfather flicks. He'd better leave the gun in Washington and take the cannoli to Moscow.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
and since the USA's "strategy" of fixing any economic "problem" created by its own long policies is by creating "wealth" out of thin air -- the famous DOLLAR FIAT printing shop -- which leads to a TREASURY BUBBLE that is SURE to burst sometime in the future -- and therefore a US GOVERNMENT BUBBLE --
which will lead to the DOLLAR COLLAPSE - which is of course the ONLY THING that really allowed the USA to run around as if on steroids as a global "empire" for a while....
as china WORRIES about the VALUE of its dollar denominated savings having bought up US DEBT -- and therefore not ONLY has begun diversifying its "portfolio" but actually recently quietly, but not "too timidly" or too secretly, begun allowing the YUAN to undergo a process of "international convertability" -- starting with taiwan and hongkong --
and as the USA HAS NO GOLD HOLDINGS commensurate with its DEBT COMMITMENTS to back them up --
guess what RUSSIA -- the second largest deposits of DIAMONDS and GOLD is doing as of TODAY ONLY?
Russia has begun putting in effect VERY STRINGENT rules about foreign prospecting for its largely UNTAPPED GOLD resources.........
guess what kind of "chess game" or Mahjong games the Russians, iranians and chinese are playing?
it sure ain't AMERICAN DOMINOES!
lol.
TEDDY: Right on! You're up on current events!