Topic: New World Order
Cold War Redux? Will America enter into a new cold war phase, and who will be the protagonists?by Ben Samuel
(Centrist)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Osama Bin Laden knew us well. At the conclusion of the successful attack on 9/11, he declared we have done what we have needed to do. America will take care of the rest. His terrorist operation, cost of less than $1 million, was an achievement beyond his grandest expectation. America's response was to spend trillions of dollars protecting the homeland and engaging in offensive operations all of questionable strategic value and clearly lacking focus to appropriate objectives. The homeland has not been attacked since. It did not need to be. America bankrupted itself in response. It surrendered its ideals of freedom and government in the process.
The story does not stop there. A simple terrorist is not reason enough to justify such overreaction. A nation-state, or better, an "Axis of Evil" must be the justification for an "Empire" to engage in such folly. An America with bruised esteem from the overthrow of its friend the Shah of Iran, its inability to bring to heel a small North Korean dictator, or the bellicose rantings of an Iraqi dictator created such an " Axis." Step one was to remove the easy mark first, that bellicose Iraqi dictator. It is here where the trouble began.
His military already humbled from its failed venture into Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was no match for American might brought to bear in a conventional war. He knew that. Throughout the build up for war that preceeded America's invasion, he made his intentions known. His hole card was a war of attrition by insurgents against an undesired occupier. Iraq prepared for that, and five years later we are still in its throes. If Iraq was to be America's Sudetenland, Mr. Bush was much less well received than Herr Hitler. There are reasons for that that extend beyond the indigenous concerns of the Iraqi people.
All wars have their seeds in economic consequence. America began this venture with its coalition of the willing, one hundred forty thousand American troops, forty thousand British troops, some Spanish, Italian, Polish and a few other nations that now prefer to remain unnamed. Noticeably absent were France, Russia and China. The hubris of American leadership was little reported domestically, but did receive some attention. At the onset of this venture, America had already become a debtor nation, and it is no coincidence that those who notably did not participate were those to whom America was most indebted. For them the enticement to join this coalition was to observe the destruction of the investments of their businesses in Iraq, forgiveness of Iraqi debt to those businesses, and American monopoly over the spoils of war. Highly motivating.
To the extent that there was employment in Iraq prior to the war, foreign interests played an extensive role in employing Iraqis. Since the war the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to where nearly two thirds of Iraqis are without jobs. However, there seems little difficulty in the resupply of weapons and ammunition to insurgent interests, and Syria and Iran are incapable of solely being the suppliers. There are other interests within Iraq, not just Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, American, Saudi, Iranian, Al-Queda. Myriad interest always emerge when there is gold (yellow or black) in them thar hills.
So while all this mayhem was unleashing in Iraq, the world did not stop its daily rotations about its axis. China went about acquiring title to natural resources in places like Canada. It was able to do so with those huge balances of American dollars it held while the dollar was strong against the Loonie. Russia, our new "ally" and defeated former protagonist in "The Cold War" went about its business of expanding its oil and gas properties and European dependence upon them. France, of course, is France and they elected Nicolas Sarkozy to replace Jacques Chirac who was less friendly to American interests, but still no troops to Iraq.
Within the bureaucracy that supports the "elected" American government there exists a cadre of ideologues who believe that any country of growing economic importance represents an emerging "threat" to all for which America stands. While the American military was being ground down in Iraq, they went about the business of promoting a missile shield for Europe and invited certain former Soviet republics into NATO. Elements of that missile shield were to be deployed in a number of those former Soviet republics and at the periphery of Russia. This was of course no small offense to the Russian leadership and they have made their concern known. Additionally, we had lent support to that "rose" revolution in the Ukraine inviting a change in leadership that was pro-western and anti-Russian, in some sense to thumb our nose at Russia. While at the time it seemed to have popular support of the Ukrainian people, that pro-western tilt has since changed, largely because of our efforts in Iraq and our militant stance to Iran.
China has emerged huge, essentially becoming America's bank. Taiwan has moved toward a more independent course in its eventual rapprochement with the mainland. The effects have been more than noticeable as our usually tough talking ("Bring it on!) president issued more soothing diplomatic tones in the recent Tibet/China flareup. China's propinquity to other emerging interests must have our cadre of ideologues stinging in their skin.
But if that is not enough, in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was popularly elected and immediately proceeded to nationalize the Venezuelan oil companies. Currency of preference for purchase of oil- the Euro.
The last seven years we have managed to make ourselves protagonist to the world. Can America vs. the world be far behind. After all the creditors are calling.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 Ben Samuel, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, April 24, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Ben Samuel only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Ben Samuel is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
A cold war is better than a hot war.
But I say no. North Korea and Iran will be delt with in a cold war style, but they both will eventually collapse and rebuild. You don't attack a country that you KNOW for sure has WMD's you attack the one who you KNOW is attempting to gain them.
Mark my words. A catastrophe will more then likely ensue at the 2008 Olympics and this will lead to more tension between the U.S. and China if not a full war. Taiwan, Tibet, and North Korea will be pulled into the mix. The Middle East was just about gaining control of the oil to fuel the war machine. Watch the news and you will see that for the last few months the focus has shifted from the Middle East to Asia. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by our own Defense Department(and accidentally leaked) and you'll see the next move on this chess board.
This will, in fact, crash our economy completely as prices will quickly rise on everything in the U.S. and China will be positioned to further crash our dollar. China will also be positioned for a huge boom as their production is much higher then their consumption at the moment. Then the Amero will be introduced in North America and we'll be pushed into a North American Union. This will subside tensions in the west and then the final focus of the elites is Asia. They will then play the same games and form them into a union as well. And, at last, the focus will go back to the Middle East.
Kind of like how the Soviet Union defeated us right? Our own Defense Department comes up with all kinds of plans. The likelyhood any of them will actully take place is doubtful.
Nothing I think, can be a more pressing question facing our time than to fully comprehend man's greed.
Another cold war will surely have the results of the first, if we indeed, even left it to begin with it. I am beginning to think that is less and less likely. You can probably amplify the effects and strike a victory in the favor of China, though.
Because though we outbet the Soviets, we still aren't out of the hole yet to gamble with China. I further am wondering if this isn't part of some greater plan to unite Asia in the face of an American threat much as how NATO was used against Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. Think about it.
If you buy into all these New World Order stories, and regardless or not if there is a higher conspiracy, you cannot deny the trends that are simply being embedded deeper and deeper with every pass.
It happened with Europe.
It's happening in Africa, although they're very much inadvertently fighting it.
And it has even been announced by former Mexican president Vicente Fox for a Latin American Union.
After this Orwellian stage, I don't know what's next, not just because there was no 1985. I guess then, they will announce the threat is over and return our sovereignty, right? ...
Frankly, American markets are rapidly becoming less relevant to those that are emerging, to include Russia and China with the greatest military options. Part of our reason for the Iraq incursion was to show these players just how crazy we can be if we are somehow less invested in the world economy. We were reacting more like a "Sonny Corleone" than Vito or even Michael for that matter. The result of our of our flatulent display is to resemble "Fredo," and we all know what happened to him.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Ben Samuel, all rights reserved.