International tensions and the US election
Many parts of the world stand on the brink of major new escalations that could erupt before the day of the US elections, November 4. I would include in that list Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia, and Ukraine. Doubtless there are more, too.
I've been trying to think through what the effects of such escalations might be on the US elections. I reckon almost any of them-- with the important exception of Iraq-- would tend to strengthen the electoral appeal of John McCain, who "promises" the US voters that he'll be tough, will stand up to aggressors, has military experience, etc.
Iraq is an exception to that rule because McCain has been running very strongly on the argument that he was "right" about the Surge, and that Obama was quite wrong to oppose it.
If there are escalations or problems inside Iraq that are of a scale to become relevant in the US elections, then that could damage McCain, given how tightly he has lashed himself to the mantra of that the Surge has "succeeded." It would also raise for US voters the even bigger question that McCain has tried to distract them from, which was the question of the advisability of the US having invaded Iraq at all.
But what if there is a major new outbreak of violence in Iraq and also in some other global trouble spot? Then, things could get really complicated...
At one level, the result of the US election will make a difference to the prospects of world peace that is less than many Obama supporters might hope. There are serious structural limitations on the ability of any US president to even maintain the present levels of overseas deployment of US forces-- let alone, his ability to launch new wars or aggressions. Whoever is president will most likely have to find a way to withdraw in some sort of good order from Iraq within the next three years-- and also, to find a way to "internationalize" the challenge of governing in Afghanistan. John McCain is not totally incapable of summoning the requisite diplomatic skills. Indeed, I can see a scenario in which he could be the "De Gaulle" or "Nixon" figure who is aboe to sell significant a significant pullback of global power to the US citizenry precisely because of his previous image as a tough guy.
Nonetheless, I think Obama shows more of the "reframing" and rethinking skills that are needed in global affairs, at this prtesent po0nt. And at the level of domestic policies I strongly prefer his approach over John McCain's.
Anyway, the two months ahead will be a sensitive time in world affairs. Let's see what happens.
No sooner said than done.
Ukranian government falls apart just before Mr Cheney comes calling and a second US Naval ship visits a Ukranian port.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4668626.ece
BP would seem to well on the road to resolving its Russian dispute
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4671789.ece
In line with Helena's thinking about impending escalations, I have been amazed at how ineffective guerrilla movements around the globe have been these past few years. In contrast to Cold War times, guerrillas don't seem to have the firepower that they once did. For example, the Iraqi insurgency had to devise its own IEDs.
The downturn in guerrilla fortunes has not reduced the number of potential hot spots, however. Somalia is ready to explode, along with the Niger Delta, much of Africa, parts of India and perhaps even Egypt, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia.
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13409
The kindling is clearly there. What seems to be missing is an arms supplier, someone who will be able to smuggle sophisticated weaponry in the same way that the US supplied the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. The most likely supplier is clearly Russia, but they have been out of the business for two decades now.
But if the US and NATO continue to confront Russia, all this could change. And if it does, Russia will find a lot of eager customers around the world. Jihadis with experience fighting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan will be in big demand as trainers. And if Russia does decide to cause some problems, the US and NATO will be very hard pressed to respond, fully occupied as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
JohnH
The kindling is clearly there. What seems to be missing is an arms supplier, someone who will be able to smuggle sophisticated weaponry in the same way that the US supplied the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.
If you read Charlie Wilson's War you will discover that the Israelis are the people who will supply arms to anyone following the good old Swiss tradition.
As they sell things to the Chinese who pass them on to all sorts of people it will be fun figuring out who blew what out of the sky with an Israeli designed and manufactured missile.
Helena,
If there is a "major new escalation", I think it unlikely to come from or in any of the five countries you mention. Sure, there will be political developments in some of those countries, some adverse from our perspective, but major new escalation, unlikely. In my view, we should be concerned about some level of attack from Al Qaeda or their associates. I agree that such an attack would favor McCain with our electorate. Al Qaeda would also prefer an extension of the present administration including the guy who, ignoring sovereignty, said he would stay in Iraq for 100 years. I'm surprised you buy into the maverick image--he ain't no Nixon. Nixon, if he was still alive, would never assert that Pakistan borders Iraq and not keep up with affairs to the extent that he thinks there still is a Czechoslovakia. For a while now, I have read your material on the Palestine/Israel conflict. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the next administration would take an interest in resolving that conflict, and even doing so. It would also facilitate everything else that we hope for in the M.E. Thus, it is important that we get it right. Who has the interest, skill and moral aptitude to accomplish that feat. RichardR
Frank raises a whole new dimension to the problem. Though the Israelis supply weapons indiscriminately, several Asian nations are expert in creating knock offs. So it may be fun trying to determine who manufactured the Israeli designed weapon that knocked something out of the sky.
So far, the Russians have not shown an interest in emulating others' weapons for profit. And, so far, the US has kept the most advanced Asians nations as friends.
However, if the US ever decided to use its "protection" of maritime oil routes as leverage against some advanced manufacturing nation--as the Russians have used it against Ukraine and Georgia--then the whole security network could unravel pretty quickly and the kindling could light pretty quickly in a lot of places.
JohnH
I would proably be concerned by anyone who can reproduce the RPG 29.
The much loved RPG 7 is probably now obsolete against armoured vehicles.
However field trials of the RPG 29 in Iraq have resulted in penetration of British tanks.
Vulnerability of Main Battle Tanks in urban situations tips the odds towards the insurgents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propelled_grenade#Russian_RPGs
Note also the mention of their use against helicopters.
RPG 29's are what Hezbollah used to knock out some of Israel's supposedly invulnerable Merkavas.
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370105
It will interesting to see where they show up next. The US can threaten Russia on its doorstep, but the West has a huge backyard full of oil producers with discontented populaces and vulnerable pipelines.
JohnH: "I have been amazed at how ineffective guerrilla movements around the globe have been these past few years."
I think you should be less amazed when you fully consider the lack of success that the US Army has suffered against the Iraq and Afghan guerrillas (and the the Israeli Army likewise against the Lebanese guerrillas).
It was "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq on May 1, 2003, against the Iraq regular forces, but the Iraq people had a different plan, and there the US military is, more than five years later, with 140,000 troops which it doesn't want to withdraw even though the New Iraq Army has thirteen divisions. So the "ineffective" Iraq guerrillas are holding their own against nearly twenty divisions and tens of thousands of police and mercenaries.
Likewise in Afghanistan, where the situation is worse.