Checks and Balances

Why does the United States attack one country but leave another alone? Why does one country merit our attention, militarily speaking, while another does not? How is it that we would attack Iraq in 1990 and in 2003 with such force - navy, air force, army & marines - that it would end the Saddam regime permanently, yet we agonize over Syria or Libya much to the detriment of nascent opposition forces trying to overthrow their dictatorial masters? Do natural resources play a part in our decision making processes in determining a direct or indirect response?

Mother Russia

My friends, the answer is blowing in the wind. A Russian wind to be precise. Since World War II, beginning with the Roosevelt Administration, the United States has made a strategic decision not to engage militarily with the Russians, communist or otherwise, where ever the they may be ensconced. They too have made a decision to not engage with us in a direct military conflagration by conventional or nuclear arms on US forces in any country that we have set up base camp. If either side attacks the other then all options are on the table and the consequences will be unforeseen. So, wherever the Russians are based then we are not and conversely, where we are based the Russians are not. The US will not attack a country in which the Russians are based and the Russians will not attack a country where we are based.

We see this "gentlemen's agreement" playing out between Russia and the United States over the whole world since WWII such as in East and West Berlin, Eastern Europe, East and West Germany during the Cold War, and of course in Cuba under Castro. This politico-military dichotomy spilled over into Communist China after 1949 and again, we decided that we would not attack the Chinese in a direct military action.

Korea

The invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans would probably have been successfully pulled off by the North had they not attacked the American Army based in South Korea directly. No doubt while North Korea swept all before them in summer months of 1950, if no American forces were in the country, then the Truman Administration would have basically abandoned the South to its fate citing this gentlemen's agreement with Russia. But Americans were there and we were directly attacked and thus we counterattacked under MacArthur and by the Winter of 1950, US forces pushed the North Koreans all the way back to China.

Then a funny thing occurred - we decided to extend to China that same gentlemen's agreement accorded to Russia. Perhaps the Russians were directly involved with the Chinese or we believed they were and thus when China herself counterattacked us at the Yalu River, they called our bluff and watched us retreat back to the 38th Parallel dividing North and South Korea. For the next two and a half years we would joust over the middle of Korea before a truce was set in place with the advent of General Eisenhower as President of the United States in 1953. It's been this way for 60 years now.

Viet Nam

Viet Nam 10 years later also was governed by this same condition. We felt the Russian/Chinese investment in North Vietnam was big enough to prevent an actual invasion by US forces and thus, like Korea, we would come to "respect" the gentlemen's agreement and only fight for South Viet Nam in a limited way. We had hoped that the North would make a truce like in Korea but political forces in the United States had turned leftward and unlike in Korea, American forces pulled out of Viet Nam by 1973. With no American forces to check the Russian/Chinese North, the Communist conventional forces invaded openly in '74 and occupied Saigon by 1975.

Proxy Forces

Vietnam also proved that proxy forces could be used to great effect to bypass this gentlemen's agreement between Russia and the United States. Russians could indeed attack American forces directly without necessarily violating this agreement. Guerrilla forces financed and supplied by the Russians/Chinese could attack the Americans and her allies with impunity which is the difference between Korea and Viet Nam.

Of course, the United States also could enlist guerrilla proxy forces against Russia as well. Both Afghanistan and Nicaragua were cases of American-backed proxies fighting the Russians during the 1980's under the able leadership of Ronald Reagan. The Mujahadeen of Afghanistan and the Contras of Nicaragua successfully destabilized Russian occupation and influence enough that the USA ended up on the winning side.

A New World Order

The end of the Cold War does not end the gentlemen's agreement. Since the "fall" of communism in Russia and the advent of the Moslem War Of Terror in the West, the United States is still operating under this politico-military regime. We will not attack a country that houses Russian/Chinese military forces. And the same is true for them on us. Hence, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 2001 but have not and will not invade Iran or Syria today because the Russians are based in both of these countries. Cuba also is still very much invested by the Russians which we could easily squash if we so desired. Libya did not base Russians or Chinese and thus we got more easily involved.

The one event that will destabilize this Russian-American dynamic will be the so called "Arab Spring". It's quite possible that a Sunni-Moslem political uprising will push the United States completely out of the Middle East as far as military bases are concerned. If this is the case, then our relationship with Israel becomes that much more important thus exacerbating the tensions with the Sunni-Moslem world which in turn could provoke nations like Qatar or Kuwait to kick us out of their countries for political - religious reasons. Similar to the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973 to punish the United States for directly supporting Israel during the Yom-Kippur War, a future conflagration with the Sunni-Moslem world could instigate a crisis that causes military base closings and troop withdrawals from Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait. For the first time since WWII, we could see a Middle East not occupied by American/Western forces which in turn could tempt the Russians to challenge the gentlemen's agreement over this part of the world.

Fasten your seatbelts.

A Few Things

Greetings from Legatus. It's been a hectic year and a half with family medical issues and job postings going haywire which has robbed me of my time at the computer. But I believe I now may be able to share my thoughts and ideas in regards to all things political/religious/economic, if you'll be so kind as to indulge me.

Boston: My first thought when I heard there were explosions at the Boston Marathon was Islamic Terror had struck again. Occam's Razor states that the most obvious answer is the answer and in this case when people were struck down by two bomb blasts seconds apart in Boston last Monday then we were looking at Moslem-inspired terrorism par excellence. Could we have been wrong? Certainly, but let us not throw out common sense for the sake of political correctness. Was this "home-grown" terrorism with no political state-sponsored support? Perhaps. But I suspect that with John Kerry as the newly minted Secretary of State that someone or some nation was sending a message in no uncertain and bloody terms. Consider that John Kerry, ex-Senator from Massachusetts, hails from this state and with his recent elevation to this post, some rogue nation or perhaps even the remnants of Al Qaida wanted to send a message that would get past the big noses at the State Department specifically and the Obama Administration generally. The arrogance of this administration to assume that since Obama is not George W. Bush, the world would just come running to Obama and Company for succor and guidance, has proven to be a red herring. This administration in many ways has simply carried on where George W left off. Right or wrong Obama's foreign policy has been a continuation of the Bush Administration which in turn has followed the dictates of the U.S. State Department.

The State Department has recommended that we embrace the Moslem Brotherhood and has done so since the mid-2000's starting under the GW administration. Perhaps they know something we don't and that the Moslem Brotherhood of Egypt has indeed been embraced by the Sunni Arab/Moslem peoples of North Africa and the Levantine region of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Perhaps the United States is simply bowing to the inevitable? Perhaps neither GW nor Obama can do anything about it but simply hope by recognizing the MoBro's that they in turn once they take power over all of the Sunni Arab world will come to embrace the United States specifically and the West in general. Guess we'll wait and see. In the meantime, we should be honest with ourselves and admit we have an "Islamic Terror" Agenda being played out in the West by both state and non-state actors.

When will this agenda of Islamic Terror be discarded? I suspect that when the Moslem Brotherhood has finally rested political control from Western supported despotic regimes from North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and erects an official Moslem Caliphate then perhaps we'll see a cease and desist order come down from on high to stop attacking Westerners in their home countries. By attacking us at home they believe we will remove ourselves in their own countries and regions, both politically and militarily, thus paving the way for the Moslem Brotherhood to take control from regimes that we have supported since the Cold War. Their calculus may unfortunately prove correct since political correctness on our part has only served to embolden them to follow this course of action. Drones will not stop them. Sanctions will not stop them. Boots on the ground will stop them, if we have the courage. Alas, we don't have that courage anymore.