[blackjack21]

Walter Russell Mead asks Have We Gone From a Post-War to a Pre-War World?

It's an interesting question, because it involves strategic thinking rather than just reactionary thinking. The rise of ISIS/ISIL/IS and the fragmentation of Iraq is something many have suggested due to its ethnically arbitrary post WWI configuration. Yet, the entire Middle East suffers from this problem. Mead describes it as a powder keg. The recent rocket attacks between Israel and Hamas are a telltale sign that he's quite right. I think its interesting when a lifelong Democrat starts asking serious questions. He's not the only one though. The Post-Pax Americana World.

he contemporary Middle East has an unstable blend of ethnicities and religions uneasily coexisting within boundaries arbitrarily marked off by external empires. Ninety-five years after the French and the British first parceled out the lands of the fallen Ottoman caliphate, that arrangement is now coming to an end. Events in Iraq and Syria suggest that the Middle East could be in for carnage and upheaval as great as anything the Balkans saw. The great powers are losing the ability to hold their clients in check; the Middle East today is at least as explosive as the Balkan region was a century ago.

This is the interesting thing. The Great Powers--essentially the US--can't do much. I think a lot of it has to do with Obama's actions, but allowing Iraq to fall apart can't be easily fixed. Obama has sown the seeds of the next war, and there is no appetite in the US to fight one right now. So the situation is likely to get out of hand before anything gets done. America surrenders in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine

Today the global U.S. alliance system has no rival or peer; while China, Russia and a handful of lesser powers are disengaged from, and in some cases even hostile to, the U.S. system, the military balance isn't even close.

Obama has some rather poisonous ideas floating in his head. He has thoroughly undermined confidence in most US allies. If America continues with its dangerous identity politics experiment--i.e., electing Hilary Clinton--I'm suspect US allies, and more dangerously US enemies, will not take America seriously. Already, Putin knows that he doesn't need to fear Obama. The EU is pushing for a new truce, because quite frankly that's all they can do without harming themselves. Meanwhile, Obama continues to screw it up by intervening in domestic affairs in Bahrain, which is the headquarters of our Fifth Fleet.

Today the disruptive effect of technological change is greater than ever. New weapons systems emerge (like drones) that transform the balance of power and set off new and unpredictable arms races. As information technology transforms the battlefield, tech itself becomes a battleground in a new era in war. Disrupting the enemy's communications, attacking its information systems (through viruses, attacks on communications satellites and EMPs for example) and otherwise wreaking havoc in cyberspace is a new frontier in war which nobody really understands.

The difference between railroads and technology is significant. This isn't something that can simply be laid at Obama feckless feet. General officers are humiliated by privates and private contractors--e.g., Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden. One of the most short-sighted aspects of the establishment's war against the Tea Party is that they are saving the bacon of the likes of Thad Cochran over the likes of Chris McDaniel. I'm not a big fan of Paul Ryan due to his position on immigration, but he knows how to run a spreadsheet in a ways that would leave Thad Cochran spellbound. I think we live in a time where age and wisdom can be at a bit of a disadvantage.

When I perform work for attorneys, I'm amazed at the difference in skill set--and I'm always bemused. Old attorneys who just won't retire don't type. They dictate to secretaries. It's like going back to the 1950s or 1960s. Attorneys in their 50s know how to type, but the slightest thing can throw them--e.g., if they lose the launch shortcut icon to an application, they think the application is gone and have no idea how to resurrect it. Even a number of 30-somethings are technologically clueless. It scares me to think that our country is being run by people like this, but it scares me even more to see the establishment trying to save the bacon of people like Thad Cochran. They do not understand the world today. They are completely clueless on both sides of the aisle, and it's quite scary.

Technological change had another, deeper role in the making of World War I. The unprecedented social shifts that accompanied the Industrial Revolution had a lot to do with the shifts in the balance of power and the rise of ideologies like nationalism and socialism that made the period so turbulent. We are certainly seeing that again today; globalization put societies all over the world under stress, and that stress often results in the rise of nationalist and even chauvinist political movements in some countries and religious fanaticism in others.

Another factor is that policy makers are operating in a vacuum of ideology. Multiculturalists assume a world where you can get every variety of ethnic food and live amongst every race of people, but that's the extent of the multiculturalism. The rest is some sort of secular society, and they are positively shocked when it doesn't materialize.

One more factor needs to be noted. The existence of nuclear weapons has changed the terms on which great powers engage. In 1914, nations could still hurl everything they had at one another in a struggle to the death; nuclear weapons change that dynamic. No major war can be as politically straightforward as war traditionally has been; the prospect of nuclear escalation will inhibit both sides in future crises as it did the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War.

I think this point is actually more moot that meaningful for this reason: World War I saw the use of chemical weapons on a mass scale. What made Hitler's toothbrush mustache so iconic was that it was what they didn't shave off in order for gas masks to fit and seal properly. The reason gas wasn't used in combat in WWII had to do with international agreements, but they are meaningless when confronting non-state actors. Seeking nuclear weapons is actually quite ridiculous in some ways. They were only intended to destroy industrial production, not to kill people. It's a hell of a lot easier to kill people with chemicals. After World War II, Nakam conspired on a plot of revenge against the Germans by poisoning the water supply. After the creation of the State of Israel, they gave up the ghost, but they were able dupe Chaim Weizmann to provide a chemist to create the poison. What prevents the use of WMDs is the threat of retaliation. The effectiveness of international agreements is largely illusory in my view. What happens when small groups who don't care if they die truly want to use these weapons as a force multiplier for nihilistic purposes?

Isis seizes former chemical weapons plant in Iraq

That's the real lesson of 9/11, and it really hasn't been learned yet. Instead, we have ridiculous lines at airports while politicians cling pathetically to notions of multiculturalism. Radicalized Overseas and Coming Home. We have $600M websites that don't work, and nobody being indicted, sued, or even fired while politicians try to pass it off like nothing is wrong. I don't know about you folks, but I think the global system is teetering right now.

[Xelrah]

Looks reasonable, but I don't think WW3 is something that we will get to see in this century. Wounds from previous wars are still too fresh and global economy would be in ruin if we would go through that scale of conflict again. However I do believe that we will see more of what happens between Russia and Ukraine - destabilizing countries, then using political and minimalistic military means to gain upper hand, as well as resource war (more so if supply will start running dry eventually).

To me USA seems to be going back to pre-war "not really our problem as long as they don't hit us too, we can give you indirect support if anything though" ideology, while Putin is testing rest of the world and tries to keep the grip on Ukraine at minimal cost. Open conflict would only destroy economy completely there (not like it was going well anyway) and Russia would only lose on that.
EU on the other hand looks to be remembering recent history and tries to keep buffer space between Russia and EU in my opinion, more so than to simply help Ukraine, while retaining good relations with Russia as well. It might sound like Europe is being weak, but it is playing safe here for a good reason (probably because it is indeed weak and not so unified, especially looking at results of recent european parliament elections).
Middle east is indeed a powder keg ready to explode if only set on fire and I believe that next bigger, conventional conflict may start there. For now we have a lot of smaller conflicts which are a mess too. West involvement only proven that we can't apply our political systems there, it simply won't work in long term. Give it some time and new dictators will rise to power and while maintaining peace in their own country they will probably try to seek war with neighbours as well.

As for nuclear weapons - they are good fear factor. No country will openly attack USA for example knowing that they have nuclear weapons ready to be used. It's also unlikely that they will be used though unless as last measure. Indirect attacks done by hackers for example could prove to be a new thing however.

This is the interesting thing. The Great Powers--essentially the US--can't do much. I think a lot of it has to do with Obama's actions, but allowing Iraq to fall apart can't be easily fixed. Obama has sown the seeds of the next war, and there is no appetite in the US to fight one right now. So the situation is likely to get out of hand before anything gets done. America surrenders in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine

Obama did probably a right thing by withdrawing from Iraq, the country is too divided in terms of religion to remain stable for more than a couple of years, and that only with strong army presence... Unless it will be ruled by dictator again.

Today the disruptive effect of technological change is greater than ever. New weapons systems emerge (like drones) that transform the balance of power and set off new and unpredictable arms races. As information technology transforms the battlefield, tech itself becomes a battleground in a new era in war. Disrupting the enemy's communications, attacking its information systems (through viruses, attacks on communications satellites and EMPs for example) and otherwise wreaking havoc in cyberspace is a new frontier in war which nobody really understands.

There's one more frontier: media. It may be harder to control but you can quite effectively brainwash good amount of people who will blindly believe in what they hear. Example of media war? You can compare how Ukrainian crisis is being reported by Russian and western media. Also alleged Russian involvement in commenting on news sites that spreads propaganda isn't unheard of.

Attorneys in their 50s know how to type, but the slightest thing can throw them--e.g., if they lose the launch shortcut icon to an application, they think the application is gone and have no idea how to resurrect it.

That reminds me how hard it is for my mother to remember even simplest things when it comes to PCs. I think I explained her at least 10 times by now how to copy/paste text and she still doesn't get it. But I suppose my generation will be struggling the same in future if technology will be advancing at same speed as now.

[Rich]

What blew the Archduke's murder up into a catastrophic world war, though, was not the tribal struggle in southeastern Europe. It took the hegemonic ambitions of the German Empire to turn a local conflict into a universal conflagration.

What a disgusting piece of propaganda. Few conflicts are as clear cut as the first world war. Austro-Hungary and Germany were in the right. Russia, Britain, France and non belligerent blockade obeying America in the wrong. The allies stood shoulder to shoulder with the Serbian "terrorists". Sure you can reject the whole world order, but assuming that you accept it within the system, where the blame likes is not in any doubt.

[starman2003]

The rise of ISIS/ISIL/IS and the fragmentation of Iraq is something many have suggested due to its ethnically arbitrary post WWI configuration. Yet, the entire Middle East suffers from this problem. Mead describes it as a powder keg.

But how will that lead to WWIII? The risk of that was greater in the past, when Israeli victories in '67 and '73 threatened to draw Russia in.

The recent rocket attacks between Israel and Hamas are a telltale sign

The recent fighting shows the central, Arab/muslim vs Israel problem is still very much alive. However, arab states are so severely wracked by internal fighting or rivalries there's virtually no prospect of a major war until viable state actors come back. That may take quite some time.

I think a lot of it has to do with Obama's actions, but allowing Iraq to fall apart can't be easily fixed. Obama has sown the seeds of the next war

Don't blame Obama for the present mess. It was the fault of shrub and his neocon screwballs, who thought they knew better than Saddam on how to govern Iraq and keep it in one piece.

That's the real lesson of 9/11, and it really hasn't been learned yet.

The real lesson of 9/11, arrived at by the 9/11 Commission, is that US policy, notably pro-Israel policy, makes it a target. Japan, Britain and many other countries don't avoid terror attacks of that magnitude by engaging in harebrained schemes to overrun and democratize the Mideast. By just don't support Israel like the US does.

[blackjack21]

Looks reasonable, but I don't think WW3 is something that we will get to see in this century. Wounds from previous wars are still too fresh and global economy would be in ruin if we would go through that scale of conflict again.

Yes, but the global economy was in ruin after WWI. Unscathed economies like the US boomed in the 1920s, but the depression hit as soon as Europe was back online. WWII wasn't far behind, and that destroyed the global economy again. Unscathed economies like the US boomed in the 1950s and 1960s, but we saw recession through the 1970s and early 1980s.

It is hard to argue against the notion that we are in a depression now. We just have a massive welfare state and propaganda apparatus hiding what is in plain view. There are minimal welfare states in the Middle East and things are desperately bad there.

However I do believe that we will see more of what happens between Russia and Ukraine - destabilizing countries, then using political and minimalistic military means to gain upper hand, as well as resource war (more so if supply will start running dry eventually).

As you probably are aware, I'm not the president of the United States. If I were, I'd use the immigration crisis as a pretext to take Mexican territory all the way down to just South of the tip of Baja California. I would use national security and the cost of defending a larger border as the basis for my actions. America's leadership is basically spineless, so I doubt that will happen. European powers used Mexico as an anti-American bulwark during the US Civil War (Maximilien) and during WWI (Zimmerman). That's happening again with Obama; although, Obama is an agent of the enemy.

However, as economies collapse, rising powers like China will eventually pounce on the weak. That seems inevitable. So I am inclined to believe that a major war is not that far off. Historically, America actually takes its sweet time getting involved in major wars.

Open conflict would only destroy economy completely there (not like it was going well anyway) and Russia would only lose on that.

I think the major economic problem is over production. 50 years ago, starvation was a real phenomenon. Today, obesity is the major problem, and it's not just in America as the stereotype suggests. Our economy has historically been based on production of tangible products with services and non-tangible products (e.g., insurance) somewhat behind. I've lamented on other threads that I think our medical system needs a major overhaul not because of a lack of coverage, but because most of what doctors do could be done by well-trained monkeys. It's the more advanced stuff like diagnosis in the absence of discrete tests, theorizing as to causes, developing rules-based methodologies where humans (and doctors) excel. Yet, they operate primarily as service providers in the most nuckleheaded manner possible. I think the economy needs to embrace "intellectual automation" if you will much more so than physical automation.

It might sound like Europe is being weak, but it is playing safe here for a good reason (probably because it is indeed weak and not so unified, especially looking at results of recent european parliament elections).

Well, that's what I mean. Their position is defined by their relative strength and weakness, not by their ability to shape outcomes.

But how will that lead to WWIII? The risk of that was greater in the past, when Israeli victories in '67 and '73 threatened to draw Russia in.

It was the communist revolution that cut Russia out of the spoils of WWI. Sykes-Picot wasn't Sykes-Picot-Trotsky for that reason. Second, in the 1960s and 1970s, Arab states still didn't have huge capital reserves. A lot of the nationalization of the oil companies was taking place around that time. They had huge capital reserves by the 1980s, and petrodollars were significant in the financial markets. The mid-1990s were more difficult due to the Iran-Iraq War, but they've been North of $60 a barrel for over a decade now, when they were as low as $12 a barrel in the mid-1990s. The Saudis used that to fund Wahhabism, which has tentacles all over the Arab world. South Sudan exists as a separate state in part because of Wahhabism. That has sparked off a more intense ideological fight between Sunni and Shia than we've seen in our lifetimes.

The recent fighting shows the central, Arab/muslim vs Israel problem is still very much alive.

No doubt. However, it's interesting that Sunni Arab nations have been much more reluctant--sans their radical components like the Muslim Brotherhood--to engage, while the Shiite factions from Iran, Syria and Lebanon are much more sanguine. The rise of a transnational ISIS is much more significant than Al Qaeda was, and that spawned a decade of warfare from the United States.

However, arab states are so severely wracked by internal fighting or rivalries there's virtually no prospect of a major war until viable state actors come back. That may take quite some time.

ISIS isn't going to front the next Irwin Rommel, but civil war is rarely ever so organized. The thing about ISIS is that they are already transnational, so its the WWI border and the League of Nations / United Nations system that is crumbling.

Don't blame Obama for the present mess. It was the fault of shrub and his neocon screwballs, who thought they knew better than Saddam on how to govern Iraq and keep it in one piece.

Obama most certainly gets blame for pulling out all the troops. Bush's fault was more specific in that he bit off wholeheartedly on Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy," which was well written and well argued. However, as we have seen with the election of Hamas (twice), the Israelis are not exactly a big fan of democracy when their enemies are democratically elected (Hitler anyone?). Getting rid of the Husseins and ensuring a stable government would have been much more economical.

What it's looking like, however, is that democracy itself is really a form of government for European races who can agree on much, but disagree intensely on other things.

The real lesson of 9/11, arrived at by the 9/11 Commission, is that US policy, notably pro-Israel policy, makes it a target.

I have argued that 9/11 was state sponsored mainly because the targets (WTC and government buildings) were all public property (WTC is owned by port authority and is leased to private interests). Also, immediately after, Arabs came to the US on a much unwelcome preaching of US policy toward Israel. However, the actors primarily interested are the Palestinians themselves. There wasn't a single Palestinian among the 9/11 hijackers. Al Qaeda was initially angered by US military presence in Saudi Arabia. While I know that Saddam Hussein wasn't the mastermind behind 9/11, he was a state sponsor of terrorism and had used WMDs. That's a big part of why Iraq was targeted. I'm not certain that the 9/11 commission wasn't a white wash.

Obviously, "they hate us for our freedoms" is pure rubbish. However, Osama bin Laden didn't talk about Palestine until after 9/11, and none of the hijackers were Palestinian. They were Egyptian or Saudi.

[starman2003]

Second, in the 1960s and 1970s, Arab states still didn't have huge capital reserves.

The soviets sent arms on easy credit terms.

The mid-1990s were more difficult due to the Iran-Iraq War,

That was in the '80s.

ISIS isn't going to front the next Irwin Rommel, but civil war is rarely ever so organized. The thing about ISIS is that they are already transnational, so its the WWI border and the League of Nations / United Nations system that is crumbling.

It's IS now. They want to form a state of their own, a caliphate and with the turf, money and weapons they have, maybe they can. It might be possible for the sunnis to reassert control over Iraq, as in the past. Of course it would be tough but internal shiite squabbling over maliki's fate might weaken their resistence.

Obama most certainly gets blame for pulling out all the troops.

Like Vietnam it was a lost cause from the start. Iraq wasn't going to be reshaped in our image. Westmoreland said, in 1975, "if we had pulled out ten years ago, south vietnam would've fallen then. If we had stayed another ten years it would fall then."

Getting rid of the Husseins and ensuring a stable government would have been much more economical.

Saddam and his type of rule was actually the key to relative internal stability.

What it's looking like, however, is that democracy itself is really a form of government for European races who can agree on much, but disagree intensely on other things.

When you look at our spiralling debt, etc I doubt it's really viable longterm anywhere.

I have argued that 9/11 was state sponsored

What state?? Saudi Arabia?

However, Osama bin Laden didn't talk about Palestine until after 9/11,

Not according to the research of Walt and Mearsheimer in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

[Rich]

Like Vietnam it was a lost cause from the start. Iraq wasn't going to be reshaped in our image. Westmorland said, in 1975, "if we had pulled out ten years ago, south vietnam would've fallen then. If we had stayed another ten years it would fall then."

Vietnam was very different from Iraq. The South Vietnames regime was fundamentally harmonious with the West, the Shia regime in Iraq was never going to be. Sending half a million conscripts to Vietnam was sheer madness. Vietnam could have been held with Air Naval, logitistic and other ground force multiplier support with perhaps a limited contingent of properly, paid, equipped trained and led volunteer ground troops.

[blackjack21]

That was in the '80s.

The shooting war was in the 1980s. Then, they had to pay off their war debts, which led to OPEC cheating. That was part of the economic rationale for Iraq invading Kuwait. The spike in oil prices in Bush I years then collapsed again to where gasoline was $1.70 a gallon under Clinton.

Like Vietnam it was a lost cause from the start.

Vietnam wasn't worth the effort, and that was the debate early on. It doesn't really matter that it fell, because like the most of the rest of the communist world, they reverted to market economies as communism doesn't work.

Iraq wasn't going to be reshaped in our image.

I quite agree, but "regime change" turned into nation building. It wasn't sold that way at first. Regime change was most certainly successful. Nation building was not.

Saddam and his type of rule was actually the key to relative internal stability.

I'm talking about personnel change, not type of rule. Look at what the Kims have done in North Korea. It becomes a bizarro cult of personality left to its own devices.

When you look at our spiralling debt, etc I doubt it's really viable longterm anywhere.

That's due more to welfare state policies than democracy as a form of government. Welfare states were originally modelled on the notion that wealthy industrialists inside the state apparatus could offset flagging demand by taxing the middle class who had economic surplus and transfer funds to the poor who had a marginal propensity to consume. The rich would get richer, but the society as a whole would be better off. That doesn't work well when the wealthy industrialist moves production offshore.

What state?? Saudi Arabia?

I don't think it was just one. I think there was a real and concerted effort to stop US hegemony by European powers, and it didn't stop there. The attackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the attack was on capital markets and the defense structure. They were unsuccessful with the political attack on Washington (sans DoD). That wasn't the first time the WTC was attacked though. It was also attacked in 1993. Ramzi Youssef had ties with both Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services. The method of bombing was urea-nitrate and hydrogen, similar to Timothy McVeigh's ammonium-nitrate and diesel attack on Oklahoma City's federal building. They received financing from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of Al Qaeda. Abdul Rahman Yasin participated in the bomb making. Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?.

There is no "smoking gun" between 9/11 and Iraq, but plenty of evidence that they were involved in other attacks against the US. Again, I wouldn't stop there. Keep in mind, France was in the loop on the no-fly zones after the Gulf War, but pulled out when Jacques Chirac came to power. He and de Villepin did not sympathize with the US at all. They pulled out of the no-fly zone around the time Clinton decided on the "regime change" policy for Iraq. Keep in mind, it was Clinton who put the "regime change" policy into effect, not Bush. It was Bush who carried it out.

Schroeder and Chirac are polar opposites politically, but they were both opposed to US military dominance in the post-Soviet era. They both wanted to see the Euro displace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. They both went to significant lengths to prevent the US from taking down Saddam Hussein.

We will never know the whole truth behind 9/11. The truth must be surrounded by a body guard of lies. However, the fact that there were repeated attacks--1993 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11--and they were all on publicly-owned property suggests that international lawyers were involved in the planning.

[ThirdTerm]

While crises between China and U.S. allies on its periphery like the Philippines could escalate into US-China crises, we don't have anything comparable to the complex and finely balanced international system at the time of World War I. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and as a direct result of that Germany attacked Belgium. It's hard to see how, for example, a Turkish attack on Syria could cause China to attack Vietnam. Today's crises are simpler, more direct and more easily controlled by the top powers. On the other hand, the Middle East's supplies of oil will keep China, as well as other powers, more involved in events there than geography would suggest. The Balkans had no products in 1914 that the rest of the world much cared about; the Middle East looms much larger in the global economy than the Balkan peninsula ever has. Already, countries including Russia and Iran have been involving themselves in Iraq. If the slide into regional chaos continues and countries like China and Japan believe that direct action is needed to secure their oil supplies, almost anything could happen in a few years. Furthermore, the geopolitical situation of Xi's China is more different from that of Wilhelm's Germany than many observers realize. While it is true that many of the same forces that drove Germany toward war 100 years ago are present in China today (especially a public mood of nationalism and an aggressive military psychology among some of the armed forces leadership), there are differences as well.

Mead correctly points out that China today is as menacing as Imperial Germany in 1914 with its rapid military build-up and the US-centred alliance system in Asia would drag America into a regional war. But China will be on its own if it invades its neighbouring countries and Russia or France would stay out of an Asian war triggered by China's misbehaviour. Steady oil supplies from the Middle East need to be secured but direct action is unlikely for Japan due to its constitutional restrictions on the use of force overseas and China historically has not got involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and its sole focus is on expanding its living space and gain Lebensraum in the South China Sea. The Cold War era was much closer to the pre-war world as the two major alliance systems existed but the fall of the Soviet Union strengthened America's global hegemony and the former Communist camp is now in complete disarray, thus making it much easier to contain China.

[starman2003]

Vietnam wasn't worth the effort, and that was the debate early on. It doesn't really matter that it fell, because like the most of the rest of the communist world, they reverted to market economies as communism doesn't work.

With hindsight we know the latter but even at the time it wasn't worth the effort.

That's due more to welfare state policies than democracy as a form of government. Welfare states were originally modelled on the notion that wealthy industrialists inside the state apparatus could offset flagging demand by taxing the middle class who had economic surplus and transfer funds to the poor who had a marginal propensity to consume.

I don't think the rich were responsible but the masses, eager to vote themselves benefits. The middle class gets more than the poor. And social spending, on food and medical care, is of little benefit to industrialists. The poor can't buy cars with food stamps or welfare checks but politicians can win their votes that way.

The rich would get richer, but the society as a whole would be better off. That doesn't work well when the wealthy industrialist moves production offshore.

If the rich were really in control they wouldn't have to do that.

I don't think it was just one. I think there was a real and concerted effort to stop US hegemony by European powers, and it didn't stop there. The attackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia...
Schroeder and Chirac are polar opposites politically, but they were both opposed to US military dominance in the post-Soviet era. They both wanted to see the Euro displace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. They both went to significant lengths to prevent the US from taking down Saddam Hussein.

We will never know the whole truth behind 9/11. The truth must be surrounded by a body guard of lies. However, the fact that there were repeated attacks--1993 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11--and they were all on publicly-owned property suggests that international lawyers were involved in the planning.

I can't believe europeans would do that. McVeigh like al-qaida had a problem with the US government but it stemmed from waco not Mideast policy.

[fuser]

Mead correctly points out that China today is as menacing as Imperial Germany in 1914 with its rapid military build-up and the US-centred alliance system in Asia would drag America into a regional war. But China will be on its own if it invades its neighbouring countries and Russia or France would stay out of an Asian war triggered by China's misbehaviour.

No, he is wrong as well as you, as always you are.

Menacing, Misbehaviour? Are we using children propaganda book here? Also fantasies like China invading (red dawn II) her helpless neighbours and the Heroic US coming again to save the day are just fantasies, try playing shitty video games and not shitty political commentaries.

[Frollein]

Don't underestimate the action-shaping powers of these "fantasies". Every preparation for war starts with the firing up of the propaganda machine (aka the media). This author thinks we are in a pre-war world:

In every war ever fought, “The Narrative” is the biggest (and the deepest) factor in the decision to go to war.(...) The narrative is strong like a drumbeat, and everywhere you can read the likes of “America’s Coming War With China.” War has not only been imagined, it already has its dramatic framing. In a score of breathless—“what would war look like”—media narratives, it has already been imagined. For their part, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)/ People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is lashed on by the dark symbols and legacies of the century of Chinese shame and degradation—to ring in a restoration of Chinese greatness.

(...) we have a plan to defeat China, and it is called Air-Sea Battle. “Naval persons” insist that this is only an “operational concept,” but no one I know in the world of the Navy actually believes that. But neither does anyone really believe that war will come either.

Yet war is now embedded in Washington Defense political life. Nowhere in DC elite discussions do I sense overriding concern over a US-China war: Chinese economic implosion following regime collapse; or a US hit by homeland strikes that cripple its critical infrastructure, economy, and its world position. Instead I attend polite “debates” in Navy circles about how best to fight the PLAN—talk so common as to be a kind of inside-the-beltway-norm. (...) today, key elites in the US and China need conflict. This is conflict they may hope to fulfill only ritually and symbolically—but they desire it for very different reasons. Everything each wants is mismatched in both narrative and objective. But over so many centuries, so many of humanity’s wars in the end just needed the eager embrace: To fight. Today there are serious constituencies in both China and the United States devoted to the idea—if not yet the full reality—of a fight.

If you hold an idea long enough, it tends to manifest. And the China/America conflict is just one example.

[blackjack21]

Mead correctly points out that China today is as menacing as Imperial Germany in 1914 with its rapid military build-up and the US-centred alliance system in Asia would drag America into a regional war. But China will be on its own if it invades its neighbouring countries and Russia or France would stay out of an Asian war triggered by China's misbehaviour.

America has real weaknesses though. The procurement system is the most convoluted and corrupt system imaginable. For example, our fighter planes are built with the intent that each congressional district will get at least some funding. It's the most absurd and corrupt way to run a national security system. We have 147 F-22 fighters, only to cancel the program. By contrast, the drone air force is huge. Why? Drones like the Predator were designed with the lowest-cost technology necessary to do the job. They went through the DARPA system, rather than the standard procurement channels. We prevailed in WWII, not because we had better weapons, but because we had more of them. Tiger tanks were superior to Sherman tanks. The Germans had 4000 Tiger tanks, whereas we had 58,000 Sherman tanks. If the Chinese can make J5s in quantity, it won't matter that the F-22 is superior.

France would stay out because it doesn't present a credible military threat. They'd have to use nuclear weapons. Russia is a different story. What if China wants to take Russian territory? That would be a similar problem and would likely involve using nuclear weapons.

Steady oil supplies from the Middle East need to be secured but direct action is unlikely for Japan due to its constitutional restrictions on the use of force overseas and China historically has not got involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and its sole focus is on expanding its living space and gain Lebensraum in the South China Sea.

There are no sparsely populated territories in the South China sea.

I don't think the rich were responsible but the masses, eager to vote themselves benefits.

Franklin Roosevelt was not impoverished. He was an aristocrat. The welfare state was born under him.

And social spending, on food and medical care, is of little benefit to industrialists.

You should reconsider that assertion. Think Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill Macmillan, Monsanto, etc. Agribusiness is basically industrialized agriculture. Medical care? Think pharmaceuticals. Pfizer has more cash on hand than the entire economy of Jordan, and a market cap the size of the Czech Republic's GDP. That's just one pharmco.

If the rich were really in control they wouldn't have to do that.

What makes you think that's the case? They are all competing for top dog. Moving offshore fattens their margins. They don't have to do that. They want to do that.

I can't believe europeans would do that. McVeigh like al-qaida had a problem with the US government but it stemmed from waco not Mideast policy.

Why wouldn't the European powers do that? They certainly wouldn't attack the US directly, and they were very clear about the US being an intolerable hyperpower (hyperpuissance as Hubert Vedrine put it). Now think about Waco. Why would the FBI have done that? Do you know that the British SAS was there too? Why are we spying on France and Germany so heavily? Why were they so involved in the oil-for-food shenanigans? McVeigh didn't know how to make a bomb that powerful. Nichols traveled to the Philippines and learned how to do that from Ramzi Youssef, an Iraqi. Clinton and Reno suppressed Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing to focus on the right wing groups in the United States, just as Obama is doing now. Why do you think Bush was so adamant about attacking Iraq? Why do you think the European powers were so opposed? The retail explanation is most certainly bullshit.

[starman2003]

For example, our fighter planes are built with the intent that each congressional district will get at least some funding. It's the most absurd and corrupt way to run a national security system.

Yes thanks to democracy. The idea is to get votes for as many congressmen as possible by ensuring work in as many districts as possible. Winning elections trumps sound defense procurement practices.

We prevailed in WWII, not because we had better weapons, but because we had more of them. Tiger tanks were superior to Sherman tanks. The Germans had 4000 Tiger tanks, whereas we had 58,000 Sherman tanks.

Sure and many Tigers had to fight the Russians.

Franklin Roosevelt was not impoverished. He was an aristocrat.

Well there was a key difference between him and old european aristocracy--he had to get votes.

You should reconsider that assertion. Think Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill Macmillan, Monsanto, etc. Agribusiness is basically industrialized agriculture. Medical care? Think pharmaceuticals. Pfizer has more cash on hand than the entire economy of Jordan, and a market cap the size of the Czech Republic's GDP. That's just one pharmco.

Just because some companies get rich from social spending doesn't mean it's the work of the rich, who don't need it; the masses voted for it.

Moving offshore fattens their margins. They don't have to do that. They want to do that.

They have to do it to compete as labor is too costly here.

McVeigh didn't know how to make a bomb that powerful. Nichols traveled to the Philippines and learned how to do that from Ramzi Youssef, an Iraqi. Clinton and Reno suppressed Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing to focus on the right wing groups in the United States, just as Obama is doing now.

The Iraqis didn't give a damn about waco; just giving technical advice isn't really involvement.

Why do you think Bush was so adamant about attacking Iraq?

Because the pro-Israel neocons notably wolfowitz, really pressured him to do it.

Why do you think the European powers were so opposed?

Because pro-Israel groups aren't as powerful so policy isn't as dumb--or wouldn't be, if they really had their way.

[blackjack21]

Just because some companies get rich from social spending doesn't mean it's the work of the rich, who don't need it; the masses voted for it.

Voting for a policy isn't the same as crafting the policy. Poor people would be better off with no capital gains tax up to some p percentage of their income or some hard n number. E.g., no capital gains tax on the first $5000 of unearned income in any given year. Then, you could add a surtax for people earning over say, $50k per year in unearned income. That would certainly be in the interest of the poor, but they don't have a hand in crafting policy; only in voting for it.

The Iraqis didn't give a damn about waco; just giving technical advice isn't really involvement.

They didn't care about Waco in the same way we don't really care about Kurds. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They cared about Waco in the sense that they could capitalize on anti-US sentiment within the US. Also, they most certainly focused on attacking the WTC, and it wasn't because they hated us for our freedoms. They cared about something in those buildings in particular.

Because the pro-Israel neocons notably wolfowitz, really pressured him to do it.

That answer avoids the strategic question and gives me a meaningless reference. Why would a pro-Israel neocon want to attack Iraq? Why would an American president respond to a pro-Israel position if it wasn't in the interest of the United States?

[spodi]

If WW III does or does not start, 2015 through 2020 is going to be more vital to the 21st century then the last 14 years. The status quo is fragile, frayed and worn. Enemies as well as allies today are looking externally as well as internally with growing suspicion. Here on this forum, as well as the halls of power and the collective consciousness can all feel the underlying tension in the air. What's happening today I believe is not the post American world, its more of the 1945 order crumbuling. Alliances will shift out of self interest. On the domestic front countries are struggling with stagnant wages, under and unemployment and income inequality severity not scene in 200 years. The chances of social unrest and revolution in first world nations have not been greater, We're in both a physical as well as social science paradigm shift but not one of the 7 billion beings on earth knows exactly where we are headed.

Here's an interesting article I read, if you'd like to, read it and give some feedback.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287271/World-plunged-crisis-2014-Cambridge-expert-predicts-Doomsday.html