Posted on 06/04/2002 7:32:52 PM PDT by swarthyguy
May 31, 2002 is likely to turn out as fateful a day in history as September 11, 2001, when the superpower was attacked on its home turf.
On the former day, the sole superpower virtually yielded to nuclear blackmail by Pakistan (conveyed by its ambassador to the UN). Instead of taking Pakistan to task as was done in 1990, the US chose to keep silent on the issue. Worse, the US administration obliged Pakistan by recalling its staff from the subcontinent.
Whether this was a momentary loss of nerve on the part of Washington or a permanent cerebral stroke incapacitating the superpower, the next few weeks will tell, as deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visit the subcontinent.
The advisory of US and western powers to their nationals verged on utter panic. It also brought out two factors which will affect the future, irrespective of any policy reversal by the United States and possible recovery of its confidence. First, in spite of the non-proliferation treaty, the counter-proliferation strategy and the Security Council summit resolution of January 1992, the US and its nuclear allies are in no position to impose nuclear discipline on Pakistan.
The message is loud and clear to other potential rogue states that if they could clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons, then the US and the rest of the international community would keep off. It would confirm the potent role of nuclear weapons in international relations.
The western leaders praised General Musharraf for more than four months for his speech of January 12, 2002 and his commitment to stop cross-border terrorism. Then, on May 31, 2002 they spoke about the possibility of an Indo-Pak war consequent upon the continuing cross-border terrorism. In other words, the sole superpower and its allies were not able to prevail upon Pakistan to abide by its commitment and invoke Security Council resolution 1373 (which mandates states not to support terrorism).
Further, Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the leadership cadres of the Al-Qaida and the Taliban are today in Pakistan and regrouping their forces. In spite of Pakistan being an ally of the US, the terrorists were able to move from Afghanistan to Pakistan in November-December 2001 before the Indo-Pak border stand-off began and while the Pakistani army fully manned the Afghan border.
Out of 22 leaders of the Al-Qaida, only two are accounted for. Most of the high profile operations of the elite US and British forces on Afghan-Pakistan border have been futile.
The US vice-president and the director of FBI have asserted that new terrorist threats are inevitable and cannot be stopped. Yet, they seem oblivious of the fact that today the epicentre of terrorism is Pakistan, from where the Al-Qaida is busy plotting new attacks on the US.
The Al-Qaida used to proclaim that they had defeated one superpower (the Soviet Union) and they would surely defeat the second (the US). The US’s current indulgent behaviour towards Pakistan would appear to validate their claims.
Lastly, by giving in to Pakistani nuclear blackmail, the US has allowed the nuclearisation of terrorism, thereby encouraging the Al-Qaida and the jehadis to continue their terrorist activities behind the shield of Pakistani nuclear capability. Today, the Al-Qaida and the Taliban may have lost Afghanistan, but they have successfully established themselves in the safe haven of Pakistan, thanks to General Musharraf’s brilliant strategy of claiming to be an ally of the US, while in practice supporting and sustaining the operation of the terrorist groups.
This strategy is derived from the one successfully practised by the Al-Qaida and the jehadis in the eighties in Afghanistan. They derived their weapons, skills and other resources from the US for the purpose of overthrowing Soviet occupation and used them successfully against the US itself. Similarly, using General Musharraf’s professed alliance with the US, the Al-Qaida will derive the necessary wherewithal to wage its war of terrorism.
In this respect, General Musharraf has been hunting with the American hound even while running with the jehadi and Al-Qaida hares.
In these circumstances, the world, as well as India may have to adjust themselves to a new international security paradigm in which the sole superpower does not have the will to commit itself to a war against terrorism or towards effective countering of nuclear blackmail. The present Indian strategy is based on certain assumptions of superpower behaviour.
The May 31 events call for a radical reassessment of our assumptions. The possibility of the US not pursuing the war against terrorism or countering nuclear blackmail has to be factored in our calculations. Many may rejoice in the sole superpower losing its nerve and abdicating its responsibility.
Others may be disoriented by it. For the Al-Qaida and the jehadis, this will be a morale booster and it will be logical to expect them to initiate more terrorist attacks both against India and the US.
The former is far more vulnerable than the latter. It is also possible the Americans may treat this as a temporary loss of nerve and return to their normal superpower behaviour pattern. In that event continuity will be restored, though at significant cost to the US image and credibility.
I don't agree that a nuclear blast in Manhattan would bring the economy to a "grinding halt", though the impact would be severe and would cause radical changes. Who knows, there may be panic in some places like Washington (or vice versa if Washington is hit).
As a Bush supporter, I am concerned about what this would do to his approval rating! LOL /sarcasm
From what I've read a lot of Wall Street has been in the process of decentralizing its information architecture for years. Only multiple location hits would really destroy what Wall Street does (like Manhattan PLUS the location of someones' backup facility). I guess we would lose a lot of investment banking talent in the short term, but a lot of them were going to be laid off soon anyway. /sarcasm It was unfortunate that the Bank of New York had its original AND backup facility for something within a few blocks when the WTC hit; both of those were screwed up, in some cases impairing some things permanently (I think they had to call up all of the counterparties to stuff and say "remember that agreement we had on such and such, could you send me another copy?"
The main issue for America would be what would happen politically/culturally after an atomic hit. How much of our current political leadership (including Bush) would we dump...in favor of what? Would we nuke Mecca, and after how much delay? It's easy to assume that politics might take a "rightward tilt" as liberals like to say, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps we will be taken over by a weepy crowd of "please don't hurt us again" types. Hey, here's an idea! Maybe we will all get computer chip implants so our movements can be tracked by government computer!
The economy will continue moving, just like breathing or like the sun rising in the East each day.
Now let us look at the yield of the device. As I said it does not have to be strong… just a kiloton or two. It doesn’t even have to explode since in global finance and stock markets the appearance of a threat (like a discovered placed nuke) is as important as the threat’s actual occurrence (although if the blast occurred the ramifications would be much stronger).
And think of it, the sad events of 9-11 cost the city billions, and if you look at the export trends for 2001 for the US (or at least the states I have been working on for stats and stuff) there was a big dip apart from few sectors. Now imagine if an actual nuke went off! Think of how the curtailing of transport and trade (or ensuring stringent controls are carried out every time) would affect the market? Why do you think the harbor services search so few of the cargo that gets into the states every day? Because it would not be efficient, however if a nuke came in on a shipping deal from let’s say South Africa (if it was smuggled there first and then shipped to the states) then the authorities would have to check every package since the next may come from a British shipping lane.
Then there would be the potential cultural changes. Big Brother would probably stop being a phenomenon for the crazy conspiracist kooks and become an absolute reality for all Americans, and it would probably receive total support from the populace due to the shock of an actual nuke strike! Finance hates government control, really hates it. That is one reason we won the communist Soviets and their centrally controlled systems. And although the US would not be an actual ‘centrally controlled economic system’ after the attacks (that I pray do not happen), it would be so similar to one due to all the controls that in essence it would be one in everything but name!
And that is why I said that in the event of a nuclear attack on WallStreet there would not only be wide spread economic pandemonium, but also a shifting of global finance and the relegation of the US monetary system into a niche lower than Western Europe (possible with an invigorated Russia as the new global cop… but that is not a certainty).
We need a constituional amendment that requires an IQ test and comprehensive wrtten and oral axams (on TV in front of the nation), that need to be passed before you can even put you name on the ballot. Sadly, though, I suspect it would only result in smarter idiots getting into office - can you images a buncch of college professors trying to run the country?
I better go to bed. I'm depressing myself.
...shudders.
I don't think that would last long. The German metal unions would strike for a 50% pay hike and they'd be uncompetitive again.
Thanks. Hope it helped make things a little clearer. After posting it I thought of a couple things I could have added. People have to remember that those alliance didn't occur sequentially, which my synopsis might imply. Many of them happened concurrently. The Soviet-India, China-Pakistan alignment had already ocurred by the time we decided to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split.
People forget that while we were fighting in Vietnam, China and India were at war for most of that time (they fought a protracted border conflict for 8 or 9 years). That conflict settled down around 68-69. In 1971, Pakistan attacked India and the two had a knock-down, drag-out brawl which nearly resulted in an Indian defeat because they couldn't risk taking too many troops away from the Chinese border. I've only just started studying that conflict and it is facinating.
The extents of Soviet inflitration around the world will never be known. Neither will the extent of the attrocities committed in the name of communism. Due to the sorry shape of Nato when Reagan came into office, many Soviet leaders were beginning to seriously consider an attack on Nato into western europe as feasible.
They doubted that we would risk a general nuclear exchange over Germany. On the ground it would have been no contest. In two weeks we would be out of ammo and the first of the re-supply ships another week away from leaving port to run a gauntlet of Soviet subs on its way accross the atlantic.
I was there in Germany from 1980 to 83. We all grew our hair long, learned as much German as we could, and had michelin guides that showed how to get to Spain or Switzerland once our ammo was gone. No one at that time believed we could be the Warsaw pact. We dodged a bullet.
We had to get very creative to keep them flying. Furtheremore, replacement parts were so hard to come by that we had to canabalize other birds (we had two permanent hanger queens for that purpose).
Now here's the sad part, we were considered the main anti-armour penetration force for the division! The concensus was that we would all become infantry auxiliaries after the first week once the birds were all gone - shot up or grounded to to lack of repair parts. If all went well we might make it two week before we ran out of ammo. We all wondered how many guys could piggy back accross the English Channel on a Cobra, providing we had fuel and flyable birds left.
I myself got in a little stick time and decided, that if necessary I could fly one to a neutral country. There was no way, after learning how the Soviets dealt with prisoners of war, that I would let myself be captured. Many guys felt that way.
Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe your job at the custom car shop is your dream position that you were seeking. I am in no way trying to dis you - I'm just surprised that ex-military people have to go through such charging transitions, though I suppose that has played out over a long time, in your case 15 years or so.
So if we were not prepared to take the Warsaw Pact in 1983, were we in better shape (on the non-nuclear side) by the time Reagan left in January 1989?
I'm about ready to read Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" again.
Three movies I saw over the past year:
Behind Enemy Lines (okay over the top)
Black Hawk Down
We Were Soldiers
I was really impressed by the professionalism portrayed in Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers. Though, I suppose the units involved were elite troops, right?
Also, I note the Navy's ability to do a lot with a little in the Battle of Midway, or the grit just to hang on like in the Chosin Reservoir Campaign (though I know relatively little about that one).
I mean, aren't soldiers going to be underequipped in some fashion anyway when the battle comes? Except, I suppose, on D-Day, when everything was arranged in advance...
Working at the Hot Rod shop is fun and relaxed. I work there now because I am working on my teaching credential and they are flexible on hours and treat me right, even if the pay isn't the greatest. But then I didn't join the Army for the pay, or decide on teaching because of the pay either.
When you leave the Army with a degree in Poly Sci, its hard to convince people you have skills beyond shouting at people while quoting Aristotle. ;-]
Black Hawk Down.
Excellent movie. I rccomend the book if you haven't read it.
We Were Soldiers.
Best of the three!
The troops in Blackhawk Down were Rangers (elite airborne light-infantry), and Delta Force (Special Ops commandos). The Rangers were the ones dressed in desert fatigues that were dropped at the four intersections and drove the vehicles. The Delta Force guys were the one that went into the building to capture the prisoners. The book explains all the distinctions which were not made very clearly in the movie.
Clancy's the best. Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite books and actually is based on NATO's strategic situation while I was stationed there. That scenario nearly came true (but with a much more disasterous ending fro us). When Reagan talked about a "window of vulnerability" he wasn't blowing smoke - the window was more like a barn door. Reagan's defense buid up closed right at the point when soviet leaders were looking at an invasion of Europe as being possible. In Clancy's version we prevailed, but the reality, had Carter been re-elected would have been far starker.
Under Reagan and Bush our military became the best-equipped and best trained force in human history. As U.S. soldiers often remarked while dismantling the world's fourth largest Army, "our training exercises are tougher than this."
Eight years of Clinton neglect has nearly brought us back to the point we were in 80. No money ws saved with all those defense cuts. History has always demostrated that it is more expensive to rebuild a military force than it is to maintain it. The Dems have always failed to understand that - "penny-wise and pund foolish."
Regards, PsyOp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.