After Iraq, where do you think the "War on Terror" will go? Some say South America, I have also heard Africa, just wondering.

well, if invading Iraq doesn't set off WW3 then Saudi Arabia (tell US to leave!) Iran, Syria, then Lebanon.

I can only hope that our attention to detail in Iraq is brief, because even though Saddam might be a danger to his neighbors, he is definitely not the one making me lose sleep at night.

NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200...17272311970.htm

D'OH! There goes sleep!


BrianDBuchanan Posted on Mar 8 2003, 11:50 PM


I think we might either turn to Iran or Syria but we might get more active in Columbia or we might even take a break

YIKES I live on the west coast. SHAZBOT....

Anyone know if Boise is nice? heh

Not sure where our attention will turn after Iraq. Hopefully, NK though

--cheers

I think there won't be wars like Iraq any more. Probably the countries in the middle east will send out thier secret police with some CIA guys and torture some terrorists. The WOT will be more like the fighting in Pakistan and the Phillipines. That seems to get more terrorists and make us safer.

Owning property out here on the left coast, not to mention my hide, I was slightly distressed to see LoraX's post of the Korean Times article. Here's one from the Anchorage Daily News with more detail:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/2719687p-2767626c.html

They are referring to the 1998 Taepodong-1 test which overshot Japan and splashed hundreds of miles away from the Alaskan coast, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency. And since I always believe government officials without question I am feeling considerably more relaxed.

Until I go back to Japan that is. Since I spent about 1/4 of my time in Tokyo I can tell you that Japanese news services have been ratcheting up the fear levels ever since NK started testing the mid-range missiles, bearing the awesome and fear inspiring name of "The No Dong". My Japanese friends are all terrified that a No Dong will fall from the sky some day and obliterate Tokyo. Having been nuked twice before you can easily understand why they're feeling edgy.

Anyway, W. would never let anything happen to Alaska as long as there's oil there.

As far as who is the next rogue state we preemtively strike? I don't think it'll be NK simply because they have nothing we want to take away (like Iraq's oil), and they appear to actually be a formidable opponent (unlike Iraq). Furthermore, a lasting standoff against NK fulfills two long held desires of the U.S. policy makers and militarists. We have always wanted Japan to discard the pacifist articles in their constitution that limits their military to a self defense force. This allows them to pick up some of the tab for regional security. Additionally, we want to sell them their own little missile defense shield. As long as they're scared to death of the No Dong they're an easy sell.

Joeshmoe.

My money's on Syria. It was one of the first countries mentioned as part of John Bolton's Axis of Just As Evil (along with Yemen and Sudan) and has been on the hit list of those who are really in charge of the White House (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton) for more than a year. Rumsfeld made this public last April when he came up with his own "axis": Iran, Iraq, and Syria - specifically targeting the weakest of the three (as reported, for example, by the BBC): "The people in Syria ought to know that their government is facilitating the flow of weapons and financing and terrorist activity down from Iran and into Lebanon and into Israel. There's no question but that the Iranians work with the Syrians and send folks into Damascus and down to Beirut... and then into south Lebanon, so that they can conduct terrorist attacks."

We are not going to leave the Middle East before we've accomplished our real mission there. The Project for a New American Century, which writes the Bush administrations foreign policy, described their strategy for becoming "a Middle Eastern power" in detail years ago (in Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan's Present Dangers), calling for an expansion of the "war on terror" to target Hezbollah and its purported sponsors, Iran and Syria. The third step is to stop "appeasing" the Palestinian cause and strengthen Sharon and the Likud.

According to American Conservative magazine, John Bolton has been meeting in Israel with Benjamin Netanyahu and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy where they've been showing him "evidence" (unsubstantiated by US intelligence) that Iraq has moved its alleged weapons of mass destruction to Syria. What more excuse do we need than more unsubstantiated allegations from more unnamed "intelligence sources"?

As a sort of bonus, the Assad regime in Syria, unlike Saddam Hussein, is hopelessly entwined with terrorist organizations (none of which pose any threat to the US, but that has long since ceased to have any relevance in this "war") and a Syrian campaign might prove a better PR exercise for the world domination agenda of the Bush administration - at least domestically. I fear that any international good will which might've been generated in the wake of the September 11 attack has already been senselessly squandered.

While it's somewhat out of date, there's a good report on the status of Syria in the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin from November 2001, which concludes that "prominent figures in the administration who have advocated a get tough policy with Syria and even held out the prospect of military force... may now have their turn." So, again, I'd say Syria will be the next target in the Bush administration's conquest of the world.

I've been thinking about it & i think that Iran may be a target next after Iraq but not as a invading force like Iraq will be but by an internal uprising. The CIA may start bribing officials that are close to Ali Khamenei to kill him

The reason for the butt kicking in Iran is because Iran is close to aquirring nukes

Do you have evidence to support this? Here's some to the contrary. It would seem that Iran is even further from developing nukes than Iraq was. I only pursue this as you seem to be mentioning it as support for the Bush admin turning its sites on Iran next. A simple link will suffice - if you need a more ornate justification, perhaps a new thread is in order.

How does that link refute Iran's nuclear aims? Of course, the Iranian official denied it, but that doesn't make it so. He also said that no foreign power would be able to contain Iran's aims...kinda confrontational in its tone. I would say your link does more to prove Iran IS pursuing a nuclear program than the opposite.

I don't recall the WOT ever being defined as only those terrorists who pose a threat to the USA.

One would have to think North Korea will be the next target after the Iraq issue is solved. However if the war goes well and we are seen as liberators in Iraq there is a possibility Bush might use that as an example for "liberating" Iran. They to do not have nukes but are trying to aquire them and with a resounding sucess in Iraq they could argue this is a repeat situation, WMD, links to terrorists, ect. Maybe I'm out on a limb here...

The article concludes "IAEA officials also point out that nothing Iran is known to have done has violated international law." As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in good standing with the IAEA, Iran has a right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, subject to the agency's oversight. That right includes producing its own enriched uranium. Technically, Iran was not obligated to disclose its Natanz plant to the IAEA until it began processing uranium, although Khatami pledged to give advance notice of new construction in the future.

Obviously I should have known better than to take the word of an Arab head of state and an Arab foreign ministry over claims by unnamed "US officials" that Iran's nuclear facilities "could possibly" some day maybe be used to perhaps manufacture weapons. Silly me - I keep forgetting that white people never lie, distort, or spin.

Of course, this sort of spinning is exactly the kind of thing that might make Iran a likely target of the Bush administration, but I still feel that they'd have an easier time concocting a convincing case for taking out Syria next. Much less spin would be required, for a start.


If not, why is there such a desperate attempt to tie Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and the September 11 attack? If not, why are we not hearing anything about Irish terrorists and Basque terrorists and Moroccan terrorists and Cypriot terrorists and Japanese terrorists and all those Latin American "freedom fighters" that we spent decades helping to overthrow democratically elected governments? If not, why is all the war rhetoric being couched in terms of fatherland - er, sorry - homeland security rather than global security?

Yeah, yeah - there was token mention when this "war" was launched of protecting "America and the world" or "American and our allies", but the State of the Union address in which the rhetorical gauntlet was hurled down concluded its war-mongering with "America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security... The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

If we're so concerned about the rest of the world, why the hell don't we listen to them? Ah - you must be thinking of the one country that our Executive does listen to: our invisible ally, Israel. Of course the "war on terror" would have to include the protection her interests as well as our own - and that, as mentioned above, makes Syria an even more likely target for the Bush administration's next exercise in extermination.

Mainly because they don't have the same weapons and reach that Iraq has. They also don't have the oil that is vital to our economy and can be used as effectively as any other weapon. They are also not in the middle of a part of the world that is festering with a cancer (radical Islam) that absolutely must be eradicated.

We are on the threshold of a new world order, one that we will have a lot to do with shaping. It is a work in progress for sure, not clearly defined yet.

With any luck, there won't have to be a 'next', but if there is I hope someone with the courage and conviction of President Bush will be at the helm.

What same weapons? The ones whose existence have yet to be proven?? And what reach? You mean the ability to reach Israel?? At least you admit that this particular leg of the "war" is more about oil than terror. Thanks for that. As for your festering cancer (which could just as easily be attributed to radical Zionism as radical Islam), this has nothing - nothing - to do with Iraq.

Wherever is next, though, you can bet that it won't be in our hemisphere, it won't be in Western Europe, it won't be against white people, and it will probably have as little to do with combatting terrorism as the conquest of Iraq has.

Unfortunately, the weapons proof will come in the next few weeks. I only hope it comes because we find them before they're used.

Yes, Israel is part of the 'reach'. And as long as Arrafat is in power, Israel deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Oil has always been a major part of the equation. Trouble is, the anti-Bush zealots try to turn it into a money issue instead of the security issue it really is. And there are enough naive and 'useful' people around to be taken in by that lie.

And yes, it has everything to do with Iraq. The eyes of the terrorist world are watching this very closely. For the past decade they have felt enboldened to increase both the frequency and severity of their attacks. There was little concern that we would reply. Not any longer.

And I thank God for that.

Since the Iraq war has progressed, it has become a little more evident of who might be next.

My guess is not Iran, but Syria

Syria has been accused of hiding Saddam's aides & family & possibly Saddam himself

I'm only working on hearsay here, but from what I've heard, Syria is now being accused of possibly harboring the WMDs that we went into Iraq to find. Can anybody corroborate this...?

If this is the case, and the administration starts building a case to go after Syria on the assumption that the enigmatic WMDs crossed the border, I think it will spell trouble. I'm hoping it is nothing more than hearsay, asI would hate to think that we're going to go waging war in some ridiculous game of international hide and seek.

At any rate, none of these reasons seem plausible to go after Syria, before we have to create any new posts about war in Syria. The administration just wanted Saddam out, from their claims. There shouldn't be any need to hunt him down (if he is alive) or assassinate him if the administration stands by what they stated from the beginning about regime change.

Secondly, Syria has already had WMDs for some time and many other nations have WMDs as well. The issue of WMDs in Iraq seemed to rest on the implication that Saddam would use the weapons, based on his past track record.

I guess we'll see...

I've heard that too Abs

Saddam supposivly paid Syria & Libya to house his family & his "inner circle"'s familes during the war but they could also be taking his weapons

Saddam Pays Libya & Syria



So ya....it is a major possibility indeed

Hey...there's thought. The Iraqis master plan would be: "Don't use any of the WMD we're hiding until we're all slaughtered. THAT will show them!".

Iraq has never used WMD outside of the Iran/Iraq war and we supplied them. They've had their butts kicked by us twice and haven't used them. My bet is, there's a message in there somewhere.

Anyhow, back to the topic. My money is on somebody with oil that can't fight back.

North Korea is off the list because they can fight back. Of course, they would sell delivery systems to satan himself if he brought cash.

Russia is off the list because they can fight back as well. According to cia.gov:


Saudi Arabia has too much oil. Strike them off the list. We can blame their blatant sponsoring of terrorism on anything as long as they pump more oil.

India and Pakistan are nuclear...strike them.

So, we need to go from the most dangerous to the most practical.

That leaves Iran, Libya, Syria, and Sudan.

My money is on Syria because that is the easiest to sell. And it sounds like we're hearing the first sales pitch.

If anybody's next, Syria is an excellent candidate, given that twelve (!) terrorist organizations have their HQ in Damascus, and given that reliable intelligence sources place a goodly number of high Iraqi officials at the Cote de Azur resort on the coast of Syria. I doubt there's any plan or need to invade them, but diplomatic pressure (perhaps not in a very diplomatic way, but behind the scenes in any case) on Assad to change his ways could have a salutary effect with a military option still on the table and with Iraq fresh in mind, and given that Assad is a lot smarter than Saddam.

Short of an outright Syrian invasion into Iraq, I don't really see us going after them militarily, at least in an overt sense. I do think the coalition forces would be well-advised to maintain a strong military presence on the Iraq-Syria border to interdict terrorists attempting to slip into Iraq and disrupt the re-building process. Syria's worst nightmare is a free and prosperous Iraq, as it is with most tyrannies in that region. Actually, that's their second worst nightmare. Their worst nightmare would be to trigger a military action against them by the coalition in the name of protecting the safety and security of Iraq. I don't think they are stupid enough to do that.

No, not Syria.

But who?

This hit my funny bone:

Axis of Pretty Darn Evil

Probably something lowkey, such as assisting the Phillipine government with rebels in Mindanao. The hard part of the job in Iraq is still ahead.

A couple of things...

1. Expect more effort to be put towards getting Chavez out of power - can't have Venezuala bucking the IMF, now, not with them supplying so much of our oil...

2. There's a certain paradox with the ME. Seeking to make Iraq a democratic nation, will we follow with democratizing the entire area? Arguably, we may have gotten much less support from our "friends" in the Gulf while staging this crime - I mean action - if they had been democratic nations. If we are to promote democracy, we will also be giving up control to a large extent. Or will we? The sad thing is that we've already created the mold for this in Central and South America - set up a "representative" government in which capital is liberated, the small ownership class makes loads and loads of money, and the "masses" go down the tubes. As we are seeing in Venezuala, this can and will eventually backfire. If history as shown repeatedly, people will rise. They will refuse to be treated like excrement. They will rise. And then we find ourselves once again in the position of working against the democracies of the South - as though democracy is only acceptable if it results in a government which is fully amenable to the puppet masters in the US.

3. I could definitely see Syria happening next, as well. A glance at the recent media tells us that our glorious administration is already testing the waters for convincing evil deeds with which to sell continued action.

4. Finally, I'm waiting for us to screw the Kurds again. Turkey, who has been responsible for the deaths of upwards of 30,000 Kurds over the last several decades, has been fairly overt in their insistence that the Kurds NOT be given their own land. So do we keep Iraq united? What do we tell the Kurds? Why should Iraq not be partitioned? It seems it would be easier to create three peacefully coexisting nations rather than one big messy one in which certain minorities are forced to take part against their wishes... I don't know.

I can't fault anybody for considering that question, but I find it unbelievable that anybody (and this is not pointing to the poster I bagged this quote from) would seriously consider this an option worth risking American lives for.

Our culture here is freedom and democracy. That is not their culture. That whole region is run by dictators because their culture has bred that for thousands of years. The dictators are not some third party administrator sent in to run the country...the leaders are the ones from the masses that rose to the top.

When Iraq got *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** at Kuwait for slant drilling into their oilfields and low-balling oil prices, we had one dictatorship invade another dictatorship. We had airbases in another country run by a dictatorship. Aside from Israel and Turkey, every country in that region is a dictatorship.

Suggesting we could turn ANY of these countries into democracies is like suggesting we could force the black community to become equal partners with us white guys over the next 10 years (I'm not saying that would be a bad thing - I'm just pointing to the reality).

My point is, there is a cultural difference we do not truly understand and certainly have no right to control. Choosing which country to invade next based on the pretext of spreading democracy is as bad as invading one because we think they have weapons capabilities we can't prove.

We lost 50,000 souls in Vietnam because of the overwhelming affect the spreading of Communism would have on the world if we didn't stop it. And we got our butts kicked, communism took over, and finding out who shot JR had more serious consequences to us than what happened after Nixon pulled the plug on the war.

If this was truly about protecting us and the war on terror, the next targets would HAVE to be the remaining axii of evil - Iran and Korea. I think it will be Syria because Iran and Korea can fight back.

The issue will get diverted to Syria the same way Bush diverted the reason for this invasion from a war on terror to liberation. To give Bush credit, he did a masterful job of a bait-and-switch to get tons of support.

I doubt that the Bush Administration will make any attempts to disarm North Korea, simply because the threat of Korean Nukes will hold them off. This War on Terror provides legitimacy to the American policy of conquering weak countries in order to retain and enhance the position of the US as the vastly pre-eminent power in the world. To that end, I think Syria and Iran, may well be next, both of which have as little chance of stopping America as Iraq did. or possibly.

I find this situation intriguing. Today , and in the last few days Blair and Bush are vehemently denying that Syria is up for the next blast of warfare, yet the other neo-cons are issueing warnings and giving conferences to the tune that Syria better beware or they're next.
My question is, who is running the Whitehouse? and why the confusing reports?

Given the pre-programmed PNAC, by Rumsfeld or Wolfie, and Perle, and of course the all powerful Sharon, Iran or Syria are next, and they all seem to do their own think tank, PUBLIC conferences and tout opinions, despite what Bush or Blair think or say.

I believe Blair more than Bush on this issue, and believe he really would Not like to see an extended war which would prove that America was really going after all out imperialism in the Mid east, making him a fool in his own country and US admin dog.

But, does Bush have the backbone to withstand, or even reign in his administration who are out there contradicting his and Blairs words at this very moment? What is the plan?

I wonder if the Administration think that Bush is such a patsy that he can be cajoled into the PNAC plan, easily and eventually, so they are playing their hand and simply outdoing him in public? It looks bad on our Leader.

If this is a play on the public, it is once again badly concieved.

Iraq is not a target... (oh really?)
Yeah, and originally we weren't going to go to war with Iraq either. With all the hulaballoo surrounding the UN disagreements, everybody forgot how the White House assured everybody after Afghanistan that Iraq wasn't next.

Everybody who called cow-poopie back then give yourself a pat on the back. As I see it, you're at least 1 for 1 in the game of guessing who's next.

And regarding the quote... it's a funny thing isn't it? We were supposed to finish off al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere before even looking at countries alleged to sponsor terrorism. Seems they lack both patience and attention span in the White House. And if Iraq is any model for the world to learn from, Syria is the new front runner -- without even being one of the original "axis of evil" members! Way to go, guys!

That's NOT a quote, its a paraphrase. It is entirely possible that the reporter got it wrong (or intentionally skewed it). Wolfowitz is quoted throughout the article, but that important bit isn't quoted, it is summarized. Notice the term suggested? He never said it.

As to Afghanistan, the mission goes on there. We sent an additional 10,000 troops there just a week ago. Iraq IS a part in the greater War on Terrorism, but not the only action going on.

To reiterate what I posted to this thread exactly one month ago: "My money's on Syria. It was one of the first countries mentioned as part of John Bolton's Axis of Just As Evil (along with Yemen and Sudan) and has been on the hit list of those who are really in charge of the White House for more than a year." I've seen nothing to change my mind - but there have been increasingly sinister references to Syria on an almost daily basis since...

To answer Artemise's "who is running the Whitehouse? and why the confusing reports?" I would say Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bolton to the first part (with Ashcroft as a sort of Constitution-shredding supernumerary - and, like Dubya himself, a sop for the fundamentalists). The reason for the confusion? Not sure - someone let Bush speak without being wired to his scriptwriters? And Blair - well, who knows? Maybe, as Syria was a former French colony, he's not as interested making that a part of the new bilateral empire. Or maybe he just hasn't got instructions from his puppet-masters (the British Israelites, perhaps?) yet.

The latest reports I have seen are that we are sending people home in droves from the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups in the gulf will soon be departing, leaving only the USS Nimitz, and it is rumored that the two carrier battle groups in the Med will be sent home in the next week or so. The F-117's, B-2's and B-1's, along with other Air force planes are being recalled to their respective home bases, deployment orders for the 1st Armored Cavalry have been revoked and there is a re-assessment in the Pentagon of any future deployments at the present time to the region.

All of this sounds to me like the major combat phase of this war is over and there is nothing contemplated in the near future for this particular theater. To be sure there are still some fire fights ahead with pockets of resistance from what amount to terrorist elements and they'll keep our airborne, marine and special ops forces busy for awhile, but any idea of a military action against Syria and/or Iran would be impractical at this point to even contemplate. One hopes those nations will understand that and begin to act like civilized nations for once. I'd really hate to have to send our people back there......

So does this mean that Syria has nothing to worry about? If Bush is calling the military home, are we to assume that he is unwilling to back the threats he has made to Syria with military force?

I somehow doubt it.

I think we are taking advantage of the success of the Iraq war, and rightly so. No better time to rattle some cages than now. I point to North Korea's sudden change of heart in not demanding one-on-one talks as a perfect example of the war's by-products. It never hurts to put a little fear into the other guy.

Are you saying that iraq was merely a convenient example to show other nations what will happen if they refuse to tow the American line? Sounds remarkably similar to the british sabre rattling of Lord Palmeston in the previous century.

I think one of the motivating factors was to prove that the US WILL act decisively.

This puts other possibly hostile nations on alert that they may be next (North Korea comes to mind). It has, in fact, worked to soften North Korea's stance towards the US.

I am unaware of any threats Bush has made of the use of military force against Syria. Perhaps you could source those threats so we could determine the context. To be certain, any attempt to disrupt the process within the nation of Iraq would be met with force, but that is of a defensive nature and we still have sufficient forces for that kind of military operation.

My point was that the withdrawl of a significant portion of our military assets from the region belies the idea that the US is considering any offensive military actions (read invasion) of Syria or any other nation in the region.

We have made one thing quite clear. This is a time when we are being led by someone who has the will and determination to follow through on his threats to use military force where deemed necessary. I am certain this was quite a shock to much of the world since we were viewed as not having the stomach for taking on the truly tough tasks.

It's not about towing the American line, unless that line is one of not threatening us or our allies. That line must be towed.

Potentially off-topic point of information: When we invaded Iraq, who exactly were they threatening? Simply naming the ally or allies will suffice so as not to derail this thread too much...

Recently I have been hearing thatsyria might be next on americas hit list. Because of the comments given by our own decretary of state donald rumsfield "Syria HAS nuclear weapons " and "syria hides the baath party". Do you think syria is next. ALSO spring break is here!!! and secondary also i think we dont need war with syria YET... because they have closed their barders, but i just want to know what you think.

I don't think we are going to invade Syria. We aren't done in Iraq. The regime in Syria has cooperated with us before. I also support spring break.

We weren't, and aren't, done in Afghanistan either. That certainly didn't stop us from charging into Iraq, though, did it? Not to mention, prior to the war, Rummy took to boasting how America could fight two large scale wars simultaneously. Only two years prior, he endorsed the PNAC document suggesting that America could not only do it, but that it should do it. Based on this train of thought, an attack on Syria, following up on the heels of two virtually completed wars, probably has ol' Rummy just chomping at the bit.

For what it's worth, here is a link from the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington think-tank where many of Bush's advisers hail from:
Political War Can Remove Terror Masters in Syria and Iran
And while many advisers come from this source, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the administration will act in this exact fashion. It's simply meant to be some food for thought, see what happens as the rhetoric progresses and then we can look back in retrospect. One bright side is that this particular article, while targeting both Syria and Iran, seems to prefer a "political war" to another act of military aggression. Eh, for whatever it's worth.

The US has had a two war policy for quite some time in terms of defense planning. The idea behind such a policy is that you don't want some other rogue nation to try and take advantage of what might seem to them a "distracted" US involved in another conflict. We saw a hint of that recently while we were building up for Iraq's liberation and that nutcase in North Korea started acting up. Even though we were pouring huge assets into the Persian Gulf, we still moved some B-1's and a carrier battle group into the Korean theatre of operations to settle ole 'Pajama Kim' down. I suspect that this two war policy will be the official US defense doctrine for quite some time to come. It does seem to work.

As far as a future war potential in the Persian Gulf is concerned, I just don't see any indications that it is contemplated at this time. We're rapidly moving many of our forces out of the region, cancelling deployments of others to the region and beginning to change the force structure from a combat to more of a policing and civil affairs force mix. We wouldn't be doing that if there was any contemplation of a direct military action in the region. It just wouldn't make any sense.

On a positive note, it sounds like the government of Syria is rather anxious to avoid getting the US too terribly upset with them. They've invited Secretary Powell for a visit when he goes to the Middle East and I saw some reports on television today that Syria was considering disinviting some of the senior Iraqi officials that they claim aren't in Syria. Not sure how that works exactly.

Oh yeah, that would be a good side effect for the US, but then again, the other half of it just might be, since you could be next, arm yourself to the teeth and as soon as possible. Lets say I were a dictator, which would I do? Hmmmn. Decide I'll be Americas bitch or begin arms escalation? Ask China, as they decided suddenly to modernize their forces and start spending huge amounts on new armament.

Aquilla
The PNAC report linked to Rummy, among others, didn't just call for the U.S. to be capable of fighting two wars simultaneously. As I said before, the report took the added measure of calling for America to do so, and to win decisively. Whereas the ability to do so has served as a defensive function in the past, the new tone calls for the ability to serve as an offensive tool.


It does indeed go both ways. Dropping the two nuclear bombs on Japan certainly didn't prevent other countries from challenging the U.S. As we demonstrated our nuclear capabilites and began the production and stockpiling of more, Soviet Russia matched us missile for missile... we remember the Cold War, don't we? Economic factors contributed to the stumbling of Russia, but they remain a threat and a risk even today. Besides maintaining their nuclear arsenal, the collapse of their economy allowed many of their weapons (nuclear or otherwise) to simply go missing.

Cooperation may be what we see today, but it isn't a guaranteed byproduct of military success in another theatre. The report I linked in my previous post indicated that there could very well be agreements between Syria and Iran. Just because they take to playing the accomodating neighbor today doesn't mean they'll continue to do so in the face of mounting rhetoric. And while North Korea is seeking multilateral talks at present time, nothing has yet been resolved there. Don't think they'll be the pushover Iraq was, either -- should it come to that.

For the time being, I'll watch for the alleged "political wars" against Syria and Iran, and how they affect the situation in the Middle East. Should there be any military action taken I'll expect to see it in one of these two countries, though the Philippines, and South and Central America may prove to be small training grounds for future involvement elsewhere.

I don't recall reading that report, not sure if there is a link to it or not, but that's not terribly important at the moment. I'm more interested in your interpretation to it, Abs. I would hope that any idea of fighting a war simply to demonstrate our power would get shot down well before it got close to the Oval Office. That should never be a reason for us to go to war and I don't believe it was the reason for our actions in either Afghanistan nor in Iraq. If I thought for one moment that it was, I would not have supported the actions.

Getting back to this PNAC, and keeping in mind that I haven't read it, if it was a war planning document, that's one thing. War planners do stuff like that all the time, they plan wars, hence the name. It doesn't mean it's policy, it just means we have a plan. It's not even a recommendation, but rather a guess at a "what if" kind of a thing. Those kind of things float around all the time. I would suspect that buried somewhere in the Pentagon are the plans for defending the Alamo against an invasion by Mexico. Bad plans, they didn't work.

Abs,

I see how easily it could be construed as you’ve described especially if you based your assessment on the section titled “Key Findings” which states the following:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
> defend the American homeland;
> fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
> perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
> transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs.”

I interpret those core mission statements to be much the same as the goals and objectives in a curriculum; it’s just a glimpse of the information that will be provided in the course.

Further investigation reveals that each core mission is defined unmistakably and it is understood PNAC does not call for us to fight two wars simultaneously. It does call for us to be ABLE to do so. See below:

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

I look forward to your response.

bela

It isn't the same "two-war" standard, but merely a standard resembling it. This also doesn't show the ability to deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars is entirely defensive. It says we should be able to launch multiple simultaneous wars and then goes on to mention unanticipated contengencies, seemingly, as a separate occurrence.

In the section detailing...

...the report also includes little gems like these:


I suspect we won't see eye to eye on whether the statements you quoted are entirely defensive or if they hint at offensive utilizations. I see it referring to having the offensive capability with the defensive ability to handle any "unanticipated contingencies." Considering the nature of the rest of the report, I only feel more strongly about this.

[Edited for update below]


N. Korea Reprocessing Fuel Rods

Looks like North Korea might not be ready to roll over just yet. I doubt they would be next for the U.S. to pursue, but I thought it a good reminder that they're still making noise. Unlike Iraq, though, we know they have some truly devastating weapons and they have a much larger army as well. That, and they could potentially level Tokyo and the heart of South Korea within hours of any conflict beginning.

Aquilla,


I doubt it is buried since it is the present Administration who wrote it, and appears to be making policy exactly in line with the ideology, step by step. It was a thorough recommendation involving many fronts. They tried to push it on Clinton but he refused.