Replies

Throughout history wars have always had an economic component. Typically, wars have been initiated by parties who perceive the greatest opportunity for gain and the lowest risk of loss. This fact is true even for those wars identified as “religious conflicts” such as the Crusades or jihad. It is also true for those wars apparently started by a tyrant or oligarchy to create an “external enemy,” ostensibly, for its own internal stability.

While the author identifies Russia as a possible belligerent, he fails to identify how Russia would gain more than it would lose in a European conflict. Beyond access to a warm water port, something Russia has coveted since the Czars, any potential Russian economic gain would be wiped out by a tremendous loss in trade and commerce. Consequently, absent some extreme circumstance, wherein Russia would be in danger of complete collapse or Germany, the “prize” in this article, was completely undefended by NATO, Russia might be a diplomatic “bully” but hardly a credible, unprovoked, military threat.

The author’s citation of Islamic “jihadists” as a threat, on the other hand, is far more credible. However, even this group must have its economic motivations and support examined. The economic potential gain is obvious and the lack of potential loss to the direct conflict initiators is also obvious. However, it is this very lack of possible loss that makes these “jihadists” unlikely, unaided candidates for war participants.

It takes a certain amount of economic “wherewithal” to mount and sustain any military effort, even a guerrilla war or terror campaign. These “jihadists” have nothing, directly. They must rely on “state sponsors.” These “state sponsors” are the appropriate, economic, or military pressure points for western nations to initially, reduce, forestall and/or eliminate the Islamic “jihadist” threats.

In summary, credibly threaten retaliation on the Middle Eastern state sponsors, either, militarily and/or economically, and the Islamic “jihadist” threat would diminish to a nuisance level outside of their home bases.

“The author’s citation of Islamic “jihadists” as a threat, on the other hand, is far more credible. However, even this group must have its economic motivations and support examined. The economic potential gain is obvious and the lack of potential loss to the direct conflict initiators is also obvious. However, it is this very lack of possible loss that makes these “jihadists” unlikely, unaided candidates for war participants. “

Drill ANWR, more nuclear power and the use of coal will eliminate global Jihad. We beat the Soviets by bankrupting them. Do the same to the state sponsors.