America the Great
As America continues the War on Terror two nations stand out as potential foreign policy disasters for the United States. Both Iran and North Korea pose almost insurrmountable odds that most who are risk-averse would shy away from. However, this particular war we find ourselves immersed does not allow a place to retreat to in as much as our own home and hearth were clearly attacked without provocation. We cannot allow this murderous conspiracy to continue unabated. We must go forward and engage the enemy on the battlefield both in the realm of a military clash of arms and in the realm of ideas. Are the risks too great that we cannot allow a military option to be entertained?
I know some might consider my comments/analysis to be indicative of a war-monger or perhaps even of an imperialist, but foreign policy allows both diplomacy and war to be conducted side-by-side and in fact diplomacy is always on-going during both times of peace and times of war. Both diplomacy and war, therefore, are not mutually exclusive. You can and do have both avenues of approach available as options when dealing in the affairs of nations. Some think that if they want "peace" to prevail then they must vote for the "Democrat Party". Conversely, others believe if you want "war" you must vote for the "Republican Party". But for the parties in question this is not a zero-sum game when it comes to foreign policy. However, it's quite possible that the Democrat Party has indeed painted themselves into a corner by relying solely on diplomacy to engage with our enemies in foreign policy and rejecting war as a policy position even when one has been attacked. The Republican Party has not cut themselves off in this fashion thus allowing themselves more room to maneuver in both spheres of international relations which in turn has made them the more desirable party to hold the reigns of power in Washington.
If diplomacy fails to persuade our adversaries to repentance then judgement by war in turn becomes operational. Both Iran and North Korea therefore are not as strong as one might think if we consider these points:
1) Geography - Iran is a large nation but it is subject to many points of entry by land, sea and air. It is mountainous but our military has been thoroughly trained in all terrain types from desert-warfare to mountain-warfare. Iran is geographically larger than Iraq or Afghanistan and this may prove to be troublesome if one thinks just in linear terms. This war however has forced the Pentagon to think in more unorthodox terms due to the extreme geographic nature of this conflict. North Korea is literally the polar opposite of Iran. With a large southern front exposed to both American and Republic of Korea forces and bounded by coastal areas subject to amphibious assault, Pongyang has no option but to slug it out, if they survive long enough, or conduct a full-fledged retreat to the Yalu River in order to remain a "viable" military force.
2) Experience - Neither Iran nor Korea have as highly trained and experienced troops as the United States. Both nations in fact have a poor history of waging war. Iran was barely able to contain the Iraqi invasion in 1980 and North Korea was entirely destroyed when MacArther landed at Inchon in September of 1950. Both Iran and North Korea rely solely on Russian and Chinese communist doctrines of warfare. This indeed is their great weakness as no nation that has employed their communist inspired doctrines, tactics and training has survived a Western or Western-trained adversary. The main reason for this glaring discrepancy is the fact that communist dictatorships despise innovation and initiative for these twin-virtues are considered a threat to their own political rulership and are thus squashed in a gulag of intimidation, torture and death for themselves, their families and acqaintances. Command and Control is therefore top-heavy and all authority is vested near the top which makes them subject to being paralyzed during the heat of battle as no one will take responsiblity or initiative at the lower echelons of command that is always demanded when engaged in war.
3) Freedom - The peoples of Iran and North Korea are being oppressed by religious and political tyranny. There is no way around this fact. This tyranny has alienated the people from their loyalty to their nation that is critical to defeating an invading force. The Iranians and North Koreans are indeed yearning for freedom but cannot escape the clutches of totalitarian government without the help of an outside force. We are that outside force that can be the catalyst for "regime-change" especially with the fact that we will destroy their mechanism of control over their peoples, namely their military. Without the military to enforce the center's political directives, the political authorities are exposed to the wrath of their own people that no doubt they deserve.
4) Allies - Both Iran and North Korea are obstinant because they have insurance to "protect" themselves in crisis or so they think in the political aegius of Russia for Iran and China for North Korea. Both Iran and North Korea have everything riding on the assurance that Russia and China respectively will come to their "rescue" if things blow up into a shooting war with the United States. It therefore will be an indication of things to come if China and Russia can be convinced that it would not be in their best interest to sacrifice their present relationship with the United States over a pitiful country like North Korea or Iran. I see greater success in this regard with China on the Korean Peninsula than I do with Russia in Iran. China is far more invested in the United States in the economic realm and could be given additional incentives to continue their trade advantage to allow us a free-hand over Pyongyang. Not so, with Tehran. Russia, however, knows that the United States still needs to be avenged for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex and the hit on the Pentagon and therefore treads carefully in Persia. Western arms have always prevented Russia from expanding in this theatre throughout history and the 21st century is no exception. If Russia somehow and someway gives in to America either at the United Nations or on a bilateral exchange, then we could see a decisive turn of events that will result in a victory of enormous consequences that favors the United States.
The United States has allowed diplomacy to maintain a considerable influence over military affairs, however time is coming to a close for both Iran and North Korea where political discourse will give way to a clash of arms. How much nuclear bluffing is going on is anyone's guess and will not be fully revealed until the Alpha Signal is sounded for an engagement of military force against the remaining Axis of Evil.
I know some might consider my comments/analysis to be indicative of a war-monger or perhaps even of an imperialist, but foreign policy allows both diplomacy and war to be conducted side-by-side and in fact diplomacy is always on-going during both times of peace and times of war. Both diplomacy and war, therefore, are not mutually exclusive. You can and do have both avenues of approach available as options when dealing in the affairs of nations. Some think that if they want "peace" to prevail then they must vote for the "Democrat Party". Conversely, others believe if you want "war" you must vote for the "Republican Party". But for the parties in question this is not a zero-sum game when it comes to foreign policy. However, it's quite possible that the Democrat Party has indeed painted themselves into a corner by relying solely on diplomacy to engage with our enemies in foreign policy and rejecting war as a policy position even when one has been attacked. The Republican Party has not cut themselves off in this fashion thus allowing themselves more room to maneuver in both spheres of international relations which in turn has made them the more desirable party to hold the reigns of power in Washington.
If diplomacy fails to persuade our adversaries to repentance then judgement by war in turn becomes operational. Both Iran and North Korea therefore are not as strong as one might think if we consider these points:
1) Geography - Iran is a large nation but it is subject to many points of entry by land, sea and air. It is mountainous but our military has been thoroughly trained in all terrain types from desert-warfare to mountain-warfare. Iran is geographically larger than Iraq or Afghanistan and this may prove to be troublesome if one thinks just in linear terms. This war however has forced the Pentagon to think in more unorthodox terms due to the extreme geographic nature of this conflict. North Korea is literally the polar opposite of Iran. With a large southern front exposed to both American and Republic of Korea forces and bounded by coastal areas subject to amphibious assault, Pongyang has no option but to slug it out, if they survive long enough, or conduct a full-fledged retreat to the Yalu River in order to remain a "viable" military force.
2) Experience - Neither Iran nor Korea have as highly trained and experienced troops as the United States. Both nations in fact have a poor history of waging war. Iran was barely able to contain the Iraqi invasion in 1980 and North Korea was entirely destroyed when MacArther landed at Inchon in September of 1950. Both Iran and North Korea rely solely on Russian and Chinese communist doctrines of warfare. This indeed is their great weakness as no nation that has employed their communist inspired doctrines, tactics and training has survived a Western or Western-trained adversary. The main reason for this glaring discrepancy is the fact that communist dictatorships despise innovation and initiative for these twin-virtues are considered a threat to their own political rulership and are thus squashed in a gulag of intimidation, torture and death for themselves, their families and acqaintances. Command and Control is therefore top-heavy and all authority is vested near the top which makes them subject to being paralyzed during the heat of battle as no one will take responsiblity or initiative at the lower echelons of command that is always demanded when engaged in war.
3) Freedom - The peoples of Iran and North Korea are being oppressed by religious and political tyranny. There is no way around this fact. This tyranny has alienated the people from their loyalty to their nation that is critical to defeating an invading force. The Iranians and North Koreans are indeed yearning for freedom but cannot escape the clutches of totalitarian government without the help of an outside force. We are that outside force that can be the catalyst for "regime-change" especially with the fact that we will destroy their mechanism of control over their peoples, namely their military. Without the military to enforce the center's political directives, the political authorities are exposed to the wrath of their own people that no doubt they deserve.
4) Allies - Both Iran and North Korea are obstinant because they have insurance to "protect" themselves in crisis or so they think in the political aegius of Russia for Iran and China for North Korea. Both Iran and North Korea have everything riding on the assurance that Russia and China respectively will come to their "rescue" if things blow up into a shooting war with the United States. It therefore will be an indication of things to come if China and Russia can be convinced that it would not be in their best interest to sacrifice their present relationship with the United States over a pitiful country like North Korea or Iran. I see greater success in this regard with China on the Korean Peninsula than I do with Russia in Iran. China is far more invested in the United States in the economic realm and could be given additional incentives to continue their trade advantage to allow us a free-hand over Pyongyang. Not so, with Tehran. Russia, however, knows that the United States still needs to be avenged for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex and the hit on the Pentagon and therefore treads carefully in Persia. Western arms have always prevented Russia from expanding in this theatre throughout history and the 21st century is no exception. If Russia somehow and someway gives in to America either at the United Nations or on a bilateral exchange, then we could see a decisive turn of events that will result in a victory of enormous consequences that favors the United States.
The United States has allowed diplomacy to maintain a considerable influence over military affairs, however time is coming to a close for both Iran and North Korea where political discourse will give way to a clash of arms. How much nuclear bluffing is going on is anyone's guess and will not be fully revealed until the Alpha Signal is sounded for an engagement of military force against the remaining Axis of Evil.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home