Replies

Thanks to all for the advice and the greetings. I'll try to catch up with some responses a little later.

I don't post much on forums, and I'm sleeping off a bug. So, I'm really not sure how much posting I'll be doing, and for how long.

The Eid al-Adha being the beginning of a threat period was validated by the canceled flights and the Ricin attacks. So kudos to Sean and the others who made that argument early on.

The premise of the original thread was validated when three of the five cities targeted in late December were NYC, LA, and DC. So I'm not in the camp of those who are dismissive of this thread or its participants.

I won't prolong the Russian subject much past this post as I think that the original topic of the thread is useful and it draws folks with similar interests (but sometimes differing opinions) to post links to articles and reports that can make a "clearinghouse" for information (both good and bad). The Russia angle is fair game, but it is a more complicated subject than al Qaeda and should probably have another thread. And with the size of this one, I'm not sure I can keep up with any others . . .

But we are not the only threat Russia faces. There are other scenarios for which Russia must prepare that do not involve the United States. And while I am not sure we have mounted a similar exercise in recent years, it is public that Russia remains among a handful of countries we consider potential threats, so we don't have our head in the sand. In any case, over the past decade (under START II and START III), we have both reconfigured our arsenals to make them more survivable, more conducive to strategic stability, and less prone to a "use it or lose it" mentality.

Also, if you recall, the Russians "let us out" of the 1971 ABM treaty in 2001 so we could actually field a rudimentary missile defense system. (The unit at Ft. Greeley went active recently as I recall and I read somewhere the original deployment goal of Sept 2004 may be accelerated). Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton never could have dreamed of this. (Reykjavik in 1986 fell apart over ABM; and Yeltsin did not have the power to push the establishment to accept this military revolution vis-a-vis the US) Presidents Bush and Putin did it.

Whether you accept it or not. The entire continental US is in range of enemy missiles *besides* that of Russia - - nations *much* more willing to use them and *much* less responsible.

I forget who said that among countries, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests (a paraphrase). If you want me to argue why Russia in 2004 will not unleash a devastating nuclear first strike as some in the USSR actually contemplated during the Cold War - - I would respond by saying that it is not in their interests.

We are the potential or actual adversary that is far away. They have much more immediate concerns. Russia is weak. They are doing this because they are weak, not because they are strong. We can deter a potential adversary by deploying one of our (10, 11, 12?) carrier battle groups. Russia has nothing by which they can project conventional power. Russia no longer has what can be described as a blue water navy - - they seldom leave port, they are poorly paid and poorly trained.

We can deter a potential adversary by deploying ground forces anywhere in the world on a very rapid basis. The Europeans use our airlift as they have little or none. The Russians can barely get from Point A to Point B inside Russia. What we are attempting for the first time since WWII in rotating a significant portion of our total combat forces is a strategic and logistical ballet that Russia could never pull off. They exercise their nuclear deterrent because it is all they have left.

Russia is weak. It has potential enemies.

This is not a matter of love or hate. And it is not a matter of politics. It is pure self-interest and national survival. If we go down, they will be next. We have common vital interests. That is why President Bush singled out Putin early on, why Condi Rice has been a longstanding advocate of a strategic relationship and why Secretary Powell was over there a week or so ago.

As Pres. Bush and Putin said at their first meeting, one day we may not only be partners, but allies.

Like I said, if we lose, they lose.

I am awestruck how many folks on the web these days fixate on Russia but nary a mention of China (or if so it is in passing). Russia has to live next to the fastest growing power on the planet not knowing what it will look like when it is full grown. Will it be a member of the civilized community and evolve away from authoritarianism as did Japan (one-party LDP rule), South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, etc.

Or will it become an aggressive, proto-fascist regional hegemon in need of strategic "lebensraum"? The jury is out. But the Russians are about as paranoid as you get (for good reason). And they have not forgotten what happened last time they reached an accommodation with a strategic adversary who was a powerful neighbor (late 1930s Germany).

They cozy up to them not because of grand conspiracy but from necessity. But if forced to choose one day, they will choose the enemy far away rather than the one next door.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

There are enemies, and there are enemies. They are not all the same.

And the whole thing depends on knowing the difference.