2007-01-22
End War
This is a document that I wrote on 2002-04-15. I thought I posted it in newsgroup alt.war.mercenary (which is where I first turned up to ask why Afghanistan was taking so long to win - I expected a 1-week rout) but can't find it in google. You can see from the "expected dates" that I was under the impression that almost all humans yearned for freedom as much as I did, and that the result in Afghanistan would be repeated throughout the world. However, like a good scientist, when emperical results don't match expected results I investigate and revise the theory, which is what I did in the Iraqi blogs. Anyway, here is the original:
I would like to obtain a Stormin' Norman plan for achieving "our" goals (and spelling out what those goals are). So if anyone knows, can they give me a link to such an un-PC, "right-wing" plan. I decided to write my own, as an example of what I am after, but I am not an expert, I want to read someone else's...
The Last of the Great Wars
Objective: A world of liberal democracies who are either pro-western, or *genuinely* neutral (like India). If all the countries of the world were no more frightening than say Norway, we would all be in a position to reduce our military spending to next to nothing, freeing up resources.
Author: Paul Edwards, a non-US citizen of one of the pro-western countries who speaks for no-one other than himself.
Date: 2002-04-15
MAIN PLAYERS:
Russia:
Despite much rhetoric about the end of the cold war, there is in fact a huge sociological divide on the Finnish/Russian border, unfathomable to the average westerner. Based on rampant nationalism, sacrifice for the motherland. Ideally this culture will change to be like ours, but until then, containment is still the order of the day. In my estimation, this culture will naturally change by 2020. A similar cultural change happened to the Japanese kamikaze.
China:
The ideology of Marxism has long gone, and China is not unduly nationalistic, although it would like the return of Taiwan. It is unlikely to seek domination outside its borders. Moreover, having been terribly burnt by dictators, the communist party has taken measures to prevent a recurrance of that, including limited terms of office and retirement ages. The revolutionaries are nearly all gone, and it is very likely this country will naturally become a democracy (like Taiwan did), by around 2020. After that, peaceful reunification with Taiwan is almost certain to follow.
Iran:
The half-arsed democracy there has shown that democracy in a Muslim country is not doomed to failure (by our standards). The people have voted for the most reform-minded people that they were able to, eventually.
Assuming that the middle-eastern countries had democracies, and via these democracies they produced anti-western governments, it is unlikely that they would seek to translate that moderate resentment/envy into tangible military action if they were threatened by the west. The Arabs are pragmatic in that way.
The WTC attacks have provided the necessary impetus to take decisive action now to take the few military actions required to make the world safe, hopefully forever.
The Hizbullah attacks on Israel have provided the ideal incentive for Israel to conquer Syria and Lebanon. At the same time, Iraq's 10-year breach of ceasefire conditions allows the US to conquer Iraq simultaneously.
All these countries will have democracies forced on them. It is likely that Iraq will merge as pro-US, like Afghanistan, and it is likely that it will in time become a member of NATO. Syria also will either become a pro-western member of NATO, or it will be forced to cede the Golan Heights. Either way, the Golan Heights will be firmly in control of NATO, as Israel will be allowed to join NATO too, guaranteeing its defence once and for all.
Jordan will likely join NATO also, providing a land bridge from Europe to Israel.
If Iran thinks that developing nuclear weapons is going to help in its self-defence, it has seriously miscalculated, as it is going to produce the exact opposite effect, which is to bring the western forces down on it from Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is possible that Iran will buckle under this pressure and eliminate its weapons. Otherwise, the regime will be changed. After Iran, we turn to Libya. Their dictators either do what we want them to do (not support terrorism, not pose military threats), or we install a democracy by force of arms. It's a win/win situation from our point of view.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will be similarly pressured to do reasonable things like get rid of anti-Semitism from their textbooks. It is unlikely the regime would prefer war to doing these things, but either way, we can't lose.
Afghanistan will join NATO's Partnership for Peace, it is already adjacent to three members. The transition from being a PfP member to full member obviously takes time, but there is no rush. So long as these countries are unable to pose a security risk, there is no particular need for them to join us, although it is always desirable to have more friends.
The NATO juggernaut heads east protecting most countries against any potential threat from China.
China and Russia know that if they want to oppose NATO's dominance, it is very, very expensive. Things like Nuclear Missile Defence keep the costs up. They would spend the money if the benefits were worth it, but in actual fact there are no benefits to them. There is actually nothing they can gain from this adversarial stance except some misplaced nationalism. Certainly the cost/benefit ratio is ludicrous.
And if the cost/benefit ratio is ludicrous, then outright war is insane.
It is this that will allow the invasion of North Korea. Hopefully we can get Russian consent to use their territory and invade from the 16km border that North Korea shares with Russia, totally avoiding the need to go against solidly defended trenches.
Pakistan has some tribal areas that have never actually been conquered, and are a hotbed of terrorism. These areas will need to be invaded sooner or later, by either the Pakistan government, the US, or India. It is probably best that the US perform this role rather than India, because Pakistan's nuclear weapons should be eliminated thereafter. The US doing the stripping prevents the Pakistanis from actually using them against anyone. The Pakistanis will probably do it by themselves if they are given an ultimatum.
With the main players: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan defeated, there should be no need for any major US troop deployment in the future. There is a need for the western forces to maintain air supremacy in all theatres. That way, any country that wants to invade an ally, will have to pay a very heavy price, and will likely lose, and there's really no benefit for them.
These few invasions, could be as low as just Syria and Iraq (the others may see the writing on the wall and take a carrot), can be done with minimum casualties, and in just a few years.
So the timescale is by 2005 we have done all the minor conquests that potentially need large numbers of US ground troops in an offensive role.
By 2010 the Russians would have ceased to be able to afford to oppose the US, even though they think it is a good idea. By then they will have decided, like Serbia, that it makes a lot more sense to join the club.
By 2020 the cultural changes should have taken place such that China and Russia don't seek to block the UN from doing such things as overthrowing the military government of Burma (although I expect we will do an "Afghanistan" on them before that). And military spending of 2% of GDP will be a joke from the bad old days. And non-democratic governments will similarly be regarded as a form of slavery that is thankfully behind us.
In the worst case, having to battle each foe in turn, we would be looking at:
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Iraq, Syria, Lebanon
2003 Iran, Sudan
2004 North Korea
2005 Libya, Pakistan
2006 Saudi Arabia, Burma
It is not necessary to wait until 2020 to reduce military spending. So long as the combined forces of the free world exceed the holdouts by about 5:1, it is possible for China to scale back in tandem with us.
What is important is to keep up the military pressure until the holdouts join us. It's not like we are trying to invade their countries so that we can burn their houses, rape their women and kick their dogs. All we're asking them to do is not enslave their own populations, nor seek to threaten their neighbours. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
I also don't think that anyone objects to this strategy so violently that they would seek to form an alliance against us. They may not support us in the UN, but they won't stop us any more than they stopped us in Kosovo. Serbia is an excellent example. Just 2 years after they were bombed they signalled their desire to join NATO, and we basically told them they couldn't even join the Partnership for Peace until they had made various reforms. That is a quite amazing fact, given that there is nothing stopping them from being neutral, they're certainly not in danger of being invaded by any non-NATO country.
|
I would like to obtain a Stormin' Norman plan for achieving "our" goals (and spelling out what those goals are). So if anyone knows, can they give me a link to such an un-PC, "right-wing" plan. I decided to write my own, as an example of what I am after, but I am not an expert, I want to read someone else's...
The Last of the Great Wars
Objective: A world of liberal democracies who are either pro-western, or *genuinely* neutral (like India). If all the countries of the world were no more frightening than say Norway, we would all be in a position to reduce our military spending to next to nothing, freeing up resources.
Author: Paul Edwards, a non-US citizen of one of the pro-western countries who speaks for no-one other than himself.
Date: 2002-04-15
MAIN PLAYERS:
Russia:
Despite much rhetoric about the end of the cold war, there is in fact a huge sociological divide on the Finnish/Russian border, unfathomable to the average westerner. Based on rampant nationalism, sacrifice for the motherland. Ideally this culture will change to be like ours, but until then, containment is still the order of the day. In my estimation, this culture will naturally change by 2020. A similar cultural change happened to the Japanese kamikaze.
China:
The ideology of Marxism has long gone, and China is not unduly nationalistic, although it would like the return of Taiwan. It is unlikely to seek domination outside its borders. Moreover, having been terribly burnt by dictators, the communist party has taken measures to prevent a recurrance of that, including limited terms of office and retirement ages. The revolutionaries are nearly all gone, and it is very likely this country will naturally become a democracy (like Taiwan did), by around 2020. After that, peaceful reunification with Taiwan is almost certain to follow.
Iran:
The half-arsed democracy there has shown that democracy in a Muslim country is not doomed to failure (by our standards). The people have voted for the most reform-minded people that they were able to, eventually.
Assuming that the middle-eastern countries had democracies, and via these democracies they produced anti-western governments, it is unlikely that they would seek to translate that moderate resentment/envy into tangible military action if they were threatened by the west. The Arabs are pragmatic in that way.
The WTC attacks have provided the necessary impetus to take decisive action now to take the few military actions required to make the world safe, hopefully forever.
The Hizbullah attacks on Israel have provided the ideal incentive for Israel to conquer Syria and Lebanon. At the same time, Iraq's 10-year breach of ceasefire conditions allows the US to conquer Iraq simultaneously.
All these countries will have democracies forced on them. It is likely that Iraq will merge as pro-US, like Afghanistan, and it is likely that it will in time become a member of NATO. Syria also will either become a pro-western member of NATO, or it will be forced to cede the Golan Heights. Either way, the Golan Heights will be firmly in control of NATO, as Israel will be allowed to join NATO too, guaranteeing its defence once and for all.
Jordan will likely join NATO also, providing a land bridge from Europe to Israel.
If Iran thinks that developing nuclear weapons is going to help in its self-defence, it has seriously miscalculated, as it is going to produce the exact opposite effect, which is to bring the western forces down on it from Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is possible that Iran will buckle under this pressure and eliminate its weapons. Otherwise, the regime will be changed. After Iran, we turn to Libya. Their dictators either do what we want them to do (not support terrorism, not pose military threats), or we install a democracy by force of arms. It's a win/win situation from our point of view.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will be similarly pressured to do reasonable things like get rid of anti-Semitism from their textbooks. It is unlikely the regime would prefer war to doing these things, but either way, we can't lose.
Afghanistan will join NATO's Partnership for Peace, it is already adjacent to three members. The transition from being a PfP member to full member obviously takes time, but there is no rush. So long as these countries are unable to pose a security risk, there is no particular need for them to join us, although it is always desirable to have more friends.
The NATO juggernaut heads east protecting most countries against any potential threat from China.
China and Russia know that if they want to oppose NATO's dominance, it is very, very expensive. Things like Nuclear Missile Defence keep the costs up. They would spend the money if the benefits were worth it, but in actual fact there are no benefits to them. There is actually nothing they can gain from this adversarial stance except some misplaced nationalism. Certainly the cost/benefit ratio is ludicrous.
And if the cost/benefit ratio is ludicrous, then outright war is insane.
It is this that will allow the invasion of North Korea. Hopefully we can get Russian consent to use their territory and invade from the 16km border that North Korea shares with Russia, totally avoiding the need to go against solidly defended trenches.
Pakistan has some tribal areas that have never actually been conquered, and are a hotbed of terrorism. These areas will need to be invaded sooner or later, by either the Pakistan government, the US, or India. It is probably best that the US perform this role rather than India, because Pakistan's nuclear weapons should be eliminated thereafter. The US doing the stripping prevents the Pakistanis from actually using them against anyone. The Pakistanis will probably do it by themselves if they are given an ultimatum.
With the main players: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan defeated, there should be no need for any major US troop deployment in the future. There is a need for the western forces to maintain air supremacy in all theatres. That way, any country that wants to invade an ally, will have to pay a very heavy price, and will likely lose, and there's really no benefit for them.
These few invasions, could be as low as just Syria and Iraq (the others may see the writing on the wall and take a carrot), can be done with minimum casualties, and in just a few years.
So the timescale is by 2005 we have done all the minor conquests that potentially need large numbers of US ground troops in an offensive role.
By 2010 the Russians would have ceased to be able to afford to oppose the US, even though they think it is a good idea. By then they will have decided, like Serbia, that it makes a lot more sense to join the club.
By 2020 the cultural changes should have taken place such that China and Russia don't seek to block the UN from doing such things as overthrowing the military government of Burma (although I expect we will do an "Afghanistan" on them before that). And military spending of 2% of GDP will be a joke from the bad old days. And non-democratic governments will similarly be regarded as a form of slavery that is thankfully behind us.
In the worst case, having to battle each foe in turn, we would be looking at:
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Iraq, Syria, Lebanon
2003 Iran, Sudan
2004 North Korea
2005 Libya, Pakistan
2006 Saudi Arabia, Burma
It is not necessary to wait until 2020 to reduce military spending. So long as the combined forces of the free world exceed the holdouts by about 5:1, it is possible for China to scale back in tandem with us.
What is important is to keep up the military pressure until the holdouts join us. It's not like we are trying to invade their countries so that we can burn their houses, rape their women and kick their dogs. All we're asking them to do is not enslave their own populations, nor seek to threaten their neighbours. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
I also don't think that anyone objects to this strategy so violently that they would seek to form an alliance against us. They may not support us in the UN, but they won't stop us any more than they stopped us in Kosovo. Serbia is an excellent example. Just 2 years after they were bombed they signalled their desire to join NATO, and we basically told them they couldn't even join the Partnership for Peace until they had made various reforms. That is a quite amazing fact, given that there is nothing stopping them from being neutral, they're certainly not in danger of being invaded by any non-NATO country.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 06:48 
