War and Conflict Journal

On May 28, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army declared that the U.S. has the ability to successfully fight a new war in Korea, despite fighting counter-insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  See the full article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_nkorea

Also, Chinese fishing boats fled the waters off of Korea in response to the ongoing crisis between North Korea and the U.S., and South Korea.

See the full article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

North Korea continues to make threatening announcements and conduct threatening actions since the detonation a nuclear device on May 23.  Since conducting that nuclear test, the Communist dictatorship has launched at least six short-range missiles into the sea, and made very belligerent, (even for North Korea!) threats and comments.  On May 27, 2009, North Korea threatened to attack South Korea if ships from the North are searched as part a U.S.-led effort to stop vessels suspected of carrying missiles or weapons of mass destruction (WOMDs). North Korea also declared the truce that ended the Korean War in 1953 as invalid.  South Korea decided to join the international effort to search North Korean vessels suspected of carrying missiles or WOMDs.  South Korea had refrained from doing so in the past, but with the Northern nuclear test on May 23, the situation changed and the South decided to send a message to the North.

Also unusual in the world reaction to this North Korean nuclear test, is the public condemnation of the North by the closest things it has to friends; China and Russia.

Many analysts are saying that this is mere saber-rattling by Kim Jong-Il, just as in the past, and that things will quiet down, especially if the world tries to pay the North off to keep quiet for a while.  While that is the most likely scenario, given past history, it should also be noted that absolute dictatorships often make very bad decisions in the case of war and peace.  Hitler made several very unwise decisions that led to the destruction of Germany.  Saddam Hussein thought Iran would be a soft target in the throes of its violent revolution, only to end up with an eight-year war and hundreds of thousands of dead.  And Saddam also thought he could gobble up Kuwait without any fuss.  Oh, and he really did not expect George W. Bush to invade in 2003.  And those Generals in Argentina who believed the British would never fight for a few cold, remote islands in the South Atlantic.  In each case, the dictators in question ended up out of power, and, in the cases of Hitler and Saddam, ended up dead because they miscalculated the results of starting wars.

The point here is, that while the world thinks that the North Korean leaders will not start a fight they cannot win; they may actually think they CAN win.  Remember, Obama is a new president, untested in the eyes of much of the world, and the U.S. IS in the middle of two major wars.  When the North Koreans attacked and seized the American ship, the USS Pueblo in the late 1960s, the U.S. was in the middle of the Vietnam War.  North Korea gambled correctly, and no American military action against North Korea took place as a result.  If Kim Jong-Il is looking at history as a guide, he may be looking at how his father embarrassed the Americans, not how Hitler, Saddam, and the Argentine Junta ended up!

For more information on this topic, go to:

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_nuclear_crisis.htm

and

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_border_conflicts.htm

On April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to the military advance of the Pakistani Taliban out of the Swat Valley that has been ceded to them by the weak Pakistani government by stating that this situation in Pakistan formed an “existential threat” to Pakistan and a “mortal threat” to the world, and by extension, to the United States.  She also called on Pakistanis to resist their government’s policy of surrendering national territory to the Islamic extremists.

Tough words, but it remains to be seen if Clinton and the Obama Administration of which she is a part, really have the gumption to truly address this issue.  The Pakistani civilian government seems incapable or unwilling to confront the Taliban in the border areas.  The Taliban (and their al-Qaida allies), rightly see this as weakness on Islamabad’s part, and are pressing their advantage.  It is well known that the Pakistani military and secret services still aid the Taliban in its fight against Allied forces in Afghanistan (see http://warandconflictjournal.com/2008/06/pakistan-aids-taliban-still/).  The military is known to still consider India as its number one foe, and it is reported that important leaders of the military and intelligence services sympathize to some point with the Islamicists in the border regions.   

Clinton is right that the Taliban advances pose a grave threat to Pakistan.  If, by some means, the Taliban or some other radical Islamic group seizes control, or at least weakens the central government enough that the nation falls into true chaos or collapse, then the U.S., Britain, the other NATO allies, and, of course, India, all have to make an important decision.  Pakistan is too large to be allowed to fall into “Failed State” status.  Its nuclear arsenal is far too deadly to fall to ilk like the Taliban or al-Qaida.  It is hard to imagine India standing by as its old, but dangerous enemy becomes perhaps more dangerous through the unpredictability of chaos. 

So, the civilized world must decide what is to be done.  Stop the Taliban now, or wait and deal with the detritus of failed policies after it is far too late.  Pakistan is the “Sick Man of South Asia,” and like the old Ottoman Empire, it is far too large and dangerous to let it fall apart without major consequences for the entire region and the world.

The Israeli military launched an airstrike on Hamas-ruled Gaza early Wednesday, Nov. 5 after Israeli troops battled Hamas militants after Hamas fired mortars rounds into Israel. Six Palestinians were killed in the renewed fighting. This was the first battle since a June truce between Israel and Hamas brought relative peace to the region.

The Israeli army said the battles broke out late Tuesday, Nov. 4, after Israeli forces found a tunnel in central Gaza built by Hamas in order to abduct Israeli soldiers. A Israeli special army unit destroyed the tunnel. One Palestinian was killed in the gunbattles at the tunnel.

The timing may be coincidental, but it is interesting that this clash took place on the same night that the American Presidential campaign concluded with a victory by Democrat Barack Obama.  Many people worry about a possible Israeli-American strike at the Hamas/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran alliance in the waning days of Republican control of the White House.  Might this small battle lead to more clashes on other borders, with a possible Iranian and/or Syrian response?

This situation bears watching…

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

While the war itself is not yet over, several points can be examined in how this conflict unfolded and the early course of the war, as well as some apparent consequences of this Russia-Georgia war:

–It now appears clear that Georgia was duped into attacking South Ossetia and that the Russians had laid a trap to make the Georgians fire the first shots, thereby letting Russia claim to be pushing back an aggressor. According to Stratfor, a private American intelligence company, Russian forces were pre-positioned near the border, therefore more able to respond quickly to attack the Georgians when they moved into South Ossetia on August 8. While the timing of the Georgian attack took the Russians by surprise, their inability to seize the South Ossetian capital and thus their delay in pushing on to the strategically important Roki Tunnel, allowed Russia to pour troops into Ossetia and force back the Georgian military.

–The early Russian bombing campaign was critical to Russia’s rout of the Georgian military. Russia has obviously learned from other recent conflicts, including the Kosovo War, their own Chechen Wars, and the American Wars against Iraq in the 1990s as well as the current Iraq War. In those conflicts, swift and overpowering use of air power against enemy military facilities, air bases, and transportation and logistical targets disrupted the defender’s plans and enabled the invading forces a powerful advantage.

–Georgia assumed that because of their cooperation with America in Iraq, and their application to join NATO, America would be more proactive in helping Georgia against Russia. This appears to have been foolish and naive wishful thinking. With major American military assets tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with a possible Iran War looming, the United States is in no position to risk war with Russia.

–Poland, which suffered from Russian invasions, massacres, and depredations multiple times in the 20th century, came to a quick agreement with the United States that will place an American missile defense base in Poland. This long-delayed agreement was reached by the Americans and Poles in an obvious response to what the Poles see as Russian aggression in Georgia.

–President George W. Bush, while eager to force democratic change in relatively weak Iraq and Afghanistan, is clearly not eager to defend a more-or-less existing democratic regime, as in Georgia, against an obvious (and relatively powerful) non-democratic aggressor.

–A corollary to the above statement is that America is dangerously overextended through numerous global commitments (not all of these commitments are wars) that limit the America’s ability to respond to new conflicts and challenges as they occur.  Case in point, even if the U.S. were willing to place American ground forces in harm’s way, even as a blocking force, they would not be able to assert themselves with any numbers or resources due to the Iraq and Afghan wars, as well as other commitments in Korea, Kosovo, and elsewhere.

–Most likely, Iran, North Korea, China, and other possible future aggressors are likely taking notes on America’s apparent fear of engaging in a possible conflict with a powerful nation, even to defend a close ally. 

–America’s smaller and more vulnerable allies should also pay attention to this abandonment of an American ally and fear the potential threats on the horizon and the likely American response, or non-response.  Taiwan should update their scenarios of a Communist Chinese attack and decide what to do if President Bush (or his successor) help them the same way he is aiding Georgia.

For regularly updated information on the ongoing war between Russia and Georgia, visit: The Georgia-Russia War at Historyguy.com

Signs point to a possible U.S./NATO/Israeli war against Iran/Syria/Hezbollah in the near future.

Tensions between Israel and Syria escalated in early April as Israel conducts nation-wide civil defense drills simulating a domestic response to a potential Hezbollah/Syrian/Iranian attack with biological and chemical weapons. This drill comes amid continued Hezbollah threats to avenge the recent assassination of one of its leaders. Supposedly in response to Israel’s drill, Syria has put its military on alert.

In addition, Israel recently conducted a joint naval exercise with NATO forces in the Mediterranean Sea. France, Britain, Germany and other NATO nations, including the U.S. have been warning of Iran’s nuclear ambitions this past year.

It is widely assumed in the U.S. and throughout the world, that the Bush/Cheney Administration, unsure of John McCain’s chances of beating the Democrats for the White House, and unwilling to leave a potentially nuclear Iran to be dealt with by an Obama or Clinton administration, will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As of April, 2008, only ten months remain for President Bush to act. Also, a preemptive war against Iran, if it goes well (a decidedly big IF), will likely boost Senator McCain’s chances against the presumed Clinton and/or Obama Democratic ticket in November.

The recent removal of Admiral Fallon, a critic of a potential Iran War, also clears the way within the military leadership for a fully-supported effort to exercise the will of the Commander-in-Chief.

Time will tell if this war scenario plays out, but the odds are heavily stacked in favor of a wider regional war pitting the Western allies (plus Israel) against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Links and Sources:

Syria Plans Emergency Drill amid Fears of War with Israel–Voice of America, April 9, 2008

Israeli intel projects a one-month war with Syria–World Tribune.com, April 9, 2008

US Military Strike set on Iran? by W. Joseph Stroupe of the International Analyst Network, April 7, 2008

Recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere raise the question, not of if, but when, a U.S.-led war on Iran will begin.

Some points to ponder:

         1.  Turkey (an Iran neighbor) is threatening to attack Kurdish rebel (PKK) bases in northern Iraq (also an Iran neighbor).

         2.  Iran has recently been shelling Kurdish rebel (PEJAK) bases in northern Iraq.

         3.  Recent war fears related to the Turkey/Kurd conflict pushed oil prices past the $90 a barrel mark.

         4.  Evidence mounts that Vice-President Dick Cheney is urging President Bush to launch a war on Iran prior to Jan. 20, 2008, when they both must leave office to make way for the new president.  Most likely such an attack on Iran will take place after the election, so as to not affect the Republican nominee’s chances of winning.  See Rolling Stone Magazine’s recent article. Znet,  Atlantic Free Press

         5.  Some conspiracy theorists contend that the recent revelation of an unauthorized  nuclear-armed B-52 flight across the United States was not truly some kind of incredible error or once-in-a-lifetime chain of events leading to a huge mistake, but a part of some conspiracy or cover-up.  One theory is that the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were intended for the Middle East and for targets in Iran, and that the flight to Louisiana was some sort of quiet "rebellion" in the ranks of the Air Force.  See

          6.  Israel’s recent air strike on Syria looks more and more like an Osirak-style raid to stop an Arab nation from acquiring nuclear weapons.  The New York Times and ABC News report that the target in Syria was a nuclear facility being built with North Korean aid.

          7.  Iran and Russia are getting cozy, and Russia is Iran’s main supplier of weapons.  The Bush administration may be tempted to attack Iran soon, before the Moscow-Tehran relationship turns into a real alliance. 

The world is at a vital turning point.  A U.S. attack on Iran could have serious consequences for the entire world.  These recent events show that strange things are occurring and the world public is left wondering.  We shall see what the future holds…

A report by Newsweek claims that Vice-President Cheney considered asking Israel to attack Iran, in hopes of provoking an Iranian response which could then be used as a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran.

This is not an unlikely scenario for the anticipated new Middle Eastern War to begin.  Coming on the heels of the Israeli airstrike on a Syrian target (perhaps a nuclear target in Syria also involving North Korea), this report creates more questions about how involved America was in the strike on Syria.

Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran – Newsweek

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel did indeed launch a heretofore secret air strike on Syrian territory on September 6, 2007.  He did not specify what the target was or why it was so important to attack and risk war.  He also revealed a moment of unity between Israel’s rival political parties; Prime Minister Olmert consulted with opposition leader Netanyahu prior to the attack.  Netanyahu said that he agreed with the military mission over Syria.

Meanwhile, reports from Syria indicate a movement within the ruling circles of the Baathist government in Damascus, that Syria must perform some sort of military response to what is now an overt attack by Israel. 

Both sides have spoken of being prepared for war this summer, along with publicly alleged desire for peace.  Syria has been upgrading its military, particularly its missile forces, with large purchases from Russia.  Israel has spent the summer with increased training for its ground forces.  The Israeli army performed poorly in its combat with Hezbollah in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. 

The War and Conflict Journal believes that the evidence of mutual military buildups, internal politics in both countries, and a perceived sense that "something" must be done about each other. Both Israel and Syria see each other as a major threat, and many leaders in each nation feel that a war may serve as a way to either reduce a perceived threat, or prove to itself and its allies that it can stand up to the ancient enemy.

A new Middle Eastern, Arab-Israeli War is about to begin, and it will be the bloodiest, most expensive war in Israel’s history.  This time, Syria has missiles that can drop large conventional (and chemical) warheads on Israeli cities.  Once war begins, Israel will have to seize Syrian territory, up to and including the capital of Damascus, in order to force the missile attacks to stop.  Such a war could easily tempt Hezbollah to launch its missiles and rockets at Israel again, as they did in 2006.  Lebanon would again become a battleground.  And Iran, ally and patron to both Syria and Hezbollah, may also enter the fray, which in turn could cause the United States and other Western allies to join the war as an opportunity to abort Iran’s growing nuclear abilities.

A 2007 October War could easily escalate into a regional nightmare.  All sides must tread carefully.

Syrian official: Damascus eager to respond to Israel flyover–YNet News, Sept. 20, 2007

Netanyahu confirms secret attack on Syria–The Guardian, Sept. 21, 2007