The State of the World: Explaining U.S. Strategy

STRATFOR ^ | February 28, 2012 | George Friedman

[EnjoyingLife]

The fall of the Soviet Union ended the European epoch, the period in which European power dominated the world. It left the United States as the only global power, something for which it was culturally and institutionally unprepared. Since the end of World War II, the United States had defined its foreign policy in terms of its confrontation with the Soviet Union. Virtually everything it did around the world in some fashion related to this confrontation. The fall of the Soviet Union simultaneously freed the United States from a dangerous confrontation and eliminated the focus of its foreign policy.

[nathanbedford]

They can be judged one of two ways. First, if the wars were intended to prevent al Qaeda from ever attacking the United States again in the fashion of 9/11, they succeeded. Even if it is difficult to see how the war in Iraq meshes with this goal, all wars involve dubious operations; the measure of war is success. If, however, the purpose of these wars was to create a sphere of pro-U.S. regimes, stable and emulating American values, they clearly failed.

I think the war in Iraq failed on both scales. It is difficult for me to understand how nation building in Iraq, which today is of mixed results and which tomorrow very likely will have been shown to have failed, prevents 19 fanatics with box cutters from attacking another American skyscraper. Of course, such an attack will not be exactly duplicated but the point is that a few suicidal terrorists do not need the infrastructure of a nationstate like Iraq to launch that kind of attack.

Further, the war has cost us billions, perhaps $1 trillion or more, it has dismayed our allies in Europe, enraged the Arab street, revealed weaknesses in American power and resolve, and encouraged wolfish observers like Russia and China. All to no lasting end.

If one applies the same measuring stick to our engagement in Afghanistan and if one is intellectually honest, he must come to very much the same conclusions.

The worst result of the war in Iraq is that it undermined the rationale for a war in Iran. The threats of a fanatical Muslim terrorists smuggling a bomb into the United States across our undefended Mexican border is real. As and when Iran acquires the bomb, that real threat becomes immediate. Partly as a result of the fiasco in Iraq, the United States has put Barack Obama in office and he shows no signs of any disposition to militarily interdict Iran's quest for the bomb.

In fact, Obama shows signs of actually wanting Iran to get the bomb because it will complete the distruction of America as the principal international obstruction to the onrush of his international socialist utopia. But even without Obama in office, Iraq has made it infinitely more difficult for the United States to intervene militarily in Iran. Even George Bush was forced to recognize that reality.

The odds are that Iran will dominate Iraq and extend its Muslim Crescent ultimately from the Afghan border with China through Syria and a retrograde turkey onto a newly radicalized Egypt's and on to the Atlantic shores of Morocco. Much of this can be laid at the feet of a failed policy in Iraq. The United States cannot invade and occupy half the world. The strategy of Iraq and Afghanistan has utterly failed.

A new approach must be fashioned or we are liable to lose the war on terrorism as we see one or more American cities are vaporized.

[IronJack]

The fall of the Soviet Union simultaneously freed the United States from a dangerous confrontation and eliminated the focus of its foreign policy.

While it may have done the latter, it decidedly did NOT do the former. The "dangerous confrontation" risk came not from the Soviet Union but from the ideology ostensibly represented by the Soviet Union: centralized, autocratic, redistributionist government. In other words, Socialism (or Communism, if you believe the Stalinists).

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Socialism did not. It was simply released from its geographic and political boundaries to fly on the wind like the down of a pernicious thistle and to settle in wherever the soil was fertile enough for it to take root. Socialism is as much a threat today as it ever was during the Cold War, even if it is not represented by an overt Hammer and Sickle anymore.

Our foreign policy does not embody a Containment principle as it used to, that is true. But our DOMESTIC policy should!

[when the time is right]

If you read the article the author seems be praising Obama for doing what he always does....vote present and hope that nothing happens....as if it is a wonderful plan that only a wise, bold leader would be capable of. But in the end he does admit that it will only work if no true crisis happens.

[darth]

Obama’s foreign policy reminds me of that great movie, Being There, where a retarded butler became President. Everyone thought he was speaking in wise parables, but he was just talking about his gardening duties as a domestic servant. Obama is giving foreign policy speeches that appear on his teleprompter about countries that I doubt he knows anything about.

The problem with Obama’s dismantling of American power around the world is that there are some countries with imperial desires. The islamozazis want to install a Caliph and conquer the world. The Russkies want their empire back. China wants the South China Sea, lots of islands, and Taiwan as well as the water resources that feed India, Viet Nam, et al.

In today’s world it is only a matter of time before terrorists move on to WMD. I am frankly amazed that they have not done so yet. With the help of Iran, Russia, or China, the terrorists could cause immense destruction. In order to protect American people, soil, and interests, we must have a robust worldwide presence and reach as well as first class human intel.

Obama has passively allowed all of these actors to regroup and rearm for the next phase of their wars.

I am not saying we should invade and nation-build in every case. However, pretty speeches and wishes are not a strategy.

The biggest problem with Leftist/commie foreign policy is that it is based on false assumptions. Their naive assumptions lead to tragic results.

One of the funniest, most pathetic examples was when Jimmy Carter sent recordings of Mahatma Ghandi’s speeches to the Ayatollah Khomeni. LOL, as if the 7th century islamic fanatic was going to listen to a HINDU prattle about non-violence.

In summary, we need a new vision and a new strategy. It must serve both our interests and our ideology.