Hugo Chavez is making news again, this time threatening war with Colombia (a U.S. ally) over the assassination of terrorist elements that have taken refuge in Ecuador. The facts aren't quite known, but it is alleged the Colombia sent military forces into Ecuador to attack members of the FARC, a terrorist group that has been staging attacks in Colombia and taking hostages (it is currently holding three U.S. citizens, for instance).
In what was considered a bizarre response, Chavez ordered several battalions to the border with Colombia and has threatened all-out war with the country. Ecuador is understandably upset, but many attribute Chavez's latest media-grabbing stunt as more saber-waving from a dictator who craves international attention for "standing up to U.S. imperialism." There are important reasons to take Chavez's threats at face value, but first some background.
United States Military Doctrine
Since the 1990s, the United States Armed Forces have held various iterations of a win-win doctrine. The current version of the doctrine (the 4-2-1 strategy) states that the United States will maintain the capability to "conduct two, overlapping 'swift defeat' campaigns… [and] the force must be able to 'win decisively' in one of the two campaigns". In layman's terms, this means the United States has set up its military to win two medium-sized wars simultaneously.
It is also important to note that the United States military debates its over-reaching strategy out in the open for the world to see. Not a single spy is needed to determine how we structure our military and with what aims in mind. A foreign agent can pick up any number of academic journals, surf the various public military and government websites, or read the many books written on the subject. No security clearance is needed. Other countries know full well what we design our military to do and conversely know what limitations we build into our system.
One can look at the current situation of the U.S. military and see how this strategy has worked (albeit not without bumps). The military is engaged in operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and achieving successes in both countries. The only area where improvement has not been substantial is in the area of nation-building, particularly, getting the native populations to take responsibility for their own political destiny. The lack of will for U.S. imperialism has come at a price.
The current situation shows that the strategy can work and is working. Al Qaeda in Iraq is essentially no more. However, it has also shown that it engages a large proportion of the resources available to the United States military that can be used for war-fighting. The preventative operations still continue, sure, but it is less than clear that the United States could, without significant difficulty, engage in a third conflict; much less a fourth conflict.
The Foreign Policy Objectives of China and Russia
In the sense of power distribution, international relations is similar to a zero-sum game. When one nation loses power, some other nation or nations gain power. The inverse is also true; when a nation gains power, it comes at the expense of another. When the USSR collapsed, the United States largely gained the power that was left on the table. This has been a point of consternation for some time for the former world power.
On the other hand, China, which has never been a superpower, does overtly crave such a status. In order to achieve such a status, the United States would have to relinquish or lose some of its current power. This leaves China and Russia as partners in a similar quest, to gain international power at the expense of the United States, the only country which that power must come from.
As an additional sideshow, there are a variety of powers across the globe that would cheer at the prospect of an American military embarrassment (no small number are European). Many lay commentators cheer on Russia and China, who criticize America's foreign policy, including commentators in the United States. One ought not to be naïve to think that these nations which murder journalists and dissidents, repress speech, and shun the rule of law inside their own borders are suddenly acting with the purity of wind-driven snow once on the international stage.
Currently, both Russia and China have ties with Venezuela (that include Russia shipping military goods to Venezuela). Russia also has historical ties with Serbia and has been a vocal supporter of Serbia against the independence of Kosovo. Currently, both areas are now volatile with Chavez's threats on one side and antagonistic behavior by Serbia on the other. Kosovo and Colombia, on the other hand, are US foreign policy commitments to continue to support those countries.
As an important counterpoint, there are elements in China and Russia that do not see eye-to-eye with the hostile-to-the-US foreign policy. They are minorities but they are the ones with money. Many of the largest businesses in both countries are beneficiaries of the American economy and thus have a vested interest in the status quo.
Could Chavez Be Serious?
Currently, the United States economy is in trouble; there is broad consensus on that at this point. Bad lending is never a good thing for an economy. Full-on economic collapses are usually combinations of multiple factors, bad lending often being one. So if Chavez isn't serious, he, along with Russia and China, is quite stupid. That is a presumption we ought not to make.
The United States military is structured to win two conflicts simultaneously. If both Kosovo and Colombia-Venezuela go hot, even militarily we would be stretched thin, if not to the breaking point. Odds are we would face the choice of sacrificing one or the other to avoid "losing" a war. With forces already on the ground in Kosovo under the auspices of NATO, we would likely have no choice but to fight in that conflict. Colombia, on the other hand, would be very easy to leave out to dry.
If forced to fight in both additional conflicts, it would provide an enormous additional strain on an already troubled economy. Drastic funding choices would have to be made to support the resources required to fight in all four conflicts simultaneously independent of the number of troops consideration. It is entirely possible that it could push an economy on the brink of recession into a full-on recession. Or for that matter, push an economy in a recession into a far worse economic position.
If China and Russia want to take definitive action to ensure American power is decreased, all they have to do is stoke the flames of conflict in Kosovo and Colombia. American political debate is focused on the superficials; no real political movement would support retaliatory action for subtle actions by Russia and China to provoke other nations to pick fights. In short, there would be little political cost to Russia and China in provoking these fights while there is everything to gain.
The only counterbalancing effect is whether those nations would prefer to ride on America's economic coattails or if they'd rather see American foreign power decline to their advantage. With the economic troubles America is facing, it becomes increasingly tempting to think those economic coattails aren't as long as they once seemed. Time will tell which trains of thought will win out.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. By trade, he is an information security professional, part of the Internet Storm Center and a courseware author and certification grader for the GIAC family of security certifications. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Squiggy said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:24 am
Artfldgr said,
The facts ARE known.
Columbia DID go into Ecuador.
Columbia used a trace from Chavez to the Dead man to find him
Columbia surprised them in a place they thought was off limits
Columbia was able to obtain the papers, and computers, and everthing else kept in this assumed ?safe? place.
Records were found that lead to monies as much as 300 million plus delivered and or promised.
FARC is holding more than just a few American citizens, as well as having branches among the gangs in the US. Some are now getting training in Iraq, since the average American will not defend themselves.
In what was considered a bizarre response
Bizarre? How is it bizarre to posture to inject destabilization and uncertainty in the Oil market, and thereby taking attention off of who losing what and what is happening where.
It is also important to note that the United States military debates its over-reaching strategy out in the open for the world to see.
This is an assumption that what is for public consumption is meaningful and similar to what goes on behind closed doors. The two cant be the same since the public tears the wings off of flies and never tries to understand things, just tries to sling parts to get their agenda first. Transparency has other purposes than just transparency.
By the way, I am past two big paragraphs and other than a lead in, you arent heading towards something that is related to the title
In the sense of power distribution, international relations is similar to a zero-sum game
WRONG.
Not at all. That?s the Marxist view that when someone has something someone else had to lose something. It?s a socialist communist view of the world, that capitalists don?t have. in case you haven?t noticed, japans success is proof that it isn?t zero sum at all. there really IS plenty for all. and soon technology will enter space, and the amounts of material there are so extreme that if it was safe we could nudge them together and create and crash planets. But don?t worry, when we start shooting our toxic process waste which only is made in space not earth, and we send it to the sun for destruction, there will be a bunch of political greenies that will holler that we are polluting the sun now. (of course anything we send to the sun, unless quite large, would be shredded and ejected long before it actually got to the ?surface?)
When one nation loses power, some other nation or nations gain power.
WRONG?
This again assumes that all of them cant cooperate. Your on a cruise ship. does the increased power of the captain in the cruise ship take away your power as a person? does your putting yourself in the hands of power, abrogate your power if they don?t lock you to them and your free to change your mind?
The status of the US did not increase after Russia pretended to fall. In relation to each other the gap got wider, but that?s a relative measurement, not a measurement of the actual state in relation to everything else.
When the USSR collapsed, the United States largely gained the power that was left on the table. This has been a point of consternation for some time for the former world power.
Really? Then why is the world more communist than when they fell? We didn?t gain any increased power. What we gained was the ability to act without so much interference from flies, and such. that?s not the same as increased power.
In fact, I suspect that you have a very mainstream media shallow concept of what power really is. which is what those in power would want you to have. it makes you a lot less effective. It makes it akin to you trying to run a breakneck race in a house of mirrors. Your nose ends up broken, and the competitor just calmly walks through never rushing.
In order to achieve such a status, the United States would have to relinquish or lose some of its current power.
How so?
Your are looking at the world through a very limited spy glass. The glass of power politics, the glass of soviet communism, and world socialsm.
If you looked at the same thing through capitalist eyes you would not see this as a situation in which one has to destroy the other to live.
The communist way is primitive, like the sociopaths that dominated the small migrating groups of humans that had to ruthlessly hate others to stay alive.
In that primitive world, what someone else gets, means your familiy starves.
In the capitalist world, they don?t accept that the fruit tree that is there is all that is. they plan and they are left to produce orchards. And now there is no reason to kill the person next to you for an apple.
This view of the world comes from the mathematics that they use to define social costs in our terms. I may post about this if someone asks me to.
In this case, and their world view, the minute that smoethign is newly invented the world is worse off. (so its an impediment to change and the preservation of sociaslit control)
So, and they have used this as a explanation, the minute that someone invents insulin, the world now has a social cost in that not everyone that needs insulin has it.
So the socialists now say, that the world is imbalances and those that don?t have insulin are now suffering. There is no thought of time. No thought of change. No thought of logistics of distribution and costs.
The only thought is that now we have made an improvement, the world suffers. You have internalized that, and are now spitting it as if it was truth, and your not even questioning where you got that view.
One ought not to be na?ve to think that these nations which murder journalists and dissidents, repress speech, and shun the rule of law inside their own borders are suddenly acting with the purity of wind-driven snow once on the international stage.
If you did what you just said, you would be questioning the validity of the zero sum angle which only exists to justify their actions against us and then seem reasonable to those here that would not side with them if they were a bit more clear on things.
Currently, both Russia and China have ties with Venezuela (that include Russia shipping military goods to Venezuela).
How about Russia giving Chavez the plans and helping build an ak107 factory, grenade launch and dragunov sniper rifles. (This is for 4g/5g warfare).
The reason this was done was that it was feared that america was going to eneter iran. However, that was why all the burners were turned on all aroud the world.
Iran is the only land bridge between Russian military equipment and all their customers that cant be monitored, guessed, and so forth. (at least not easily).
So iran was and is key to closing the door into the middle east and Africa. Spain was bombed so that russia would have control of the straight.
Ajerbaijana and Georgia are so important because they make this land bridge up too. and allows them to use turkey if the line in the sand si broken and turkey is forced again to side with them. its why russia also yelled at the US in the Caspian threatening them.
If Georgia and ajerbaijan fall to the west, then they have to use the Caspian to get the weapons to iran to be distributed. And if you move by ship you can establish an upper limit to whats being moved.
Turkey, iraq, iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, are a one nation barrier to the unchecked movement of weapons and military equipment and expertise.
Given that russia desont really produce much, and relies on raw materials, its in their interest to destabilize the countries that could enter the business (Africa), and to destabilize oil producers (inflate prices artificially), and collude on prices and supplies (opec).
The major difference that people like you are not picking up is that china, if it allows the expansion of the growth to move to the rest of the country, will end up being very western in that it makes its money in turning raw materials into products.
Such a system, is a system that does better with stability. So the question with china is will it stay on this route which favors international stability and no zero sum games, and then they will have too much material to make it worth playing war games.
Russia unlike china never promoted this second teir economics. They manipulated to centralize things for the kgb through 25 or so oligarchs. China didn?t create oligarchs, but did create wealthy people.
This make china hard to understand because they are at a crossroads.
Russia though has never left the place it was at before. The people who are in the politburo, and most key places are the same people who were in place during the cold war. The same education.. the same bad news.
Forgive me if I don?t comment on Kosovo? your article as was said in the above comment, is so all over the place that its just spew.
Currently, the United States economy is in trouble; there is broad consensus on that at this point. Bad lending is never a good thing for an economy.
Oh I agree? so are central banks that are companies? and that socialists forcing banks to loosten up their lending policies so that people who cant afford the loans get them in an attempt to speculate with everything they have, is also detrimental. Too bad we don?t remember that they forced the banks to do this to make the options open to people with means also open to people with little means, experience, and knowledge.
Once is an accident, twice a coincidence, three times is planned.
The United States military is structured to win two conflicts simultaneously. If both Kosovo and Colombia-Venezuela go hot, even militarily we would be stretched thin, if not to the breaking point.
Really? How so? What makes you think that we have to go to war and that hillary and obama would let us?
There really isn?t much problem with all this in that Columbia?s military is several times the size of Chavez?s, and their military has more than 20 years of active experience. Which is why FARC has never gotten that far despite huge monies, material, and expertise from the GRU.
A small guy can always pick a fight with a bigger guy. They always win if the bigger guy can get suckered into responding. It doesn?t matter that people are dying in the sudan, if the US goes in, its still the big bad guy no matter how bad the people are that they stop. That?s just how we operate.
Your assumption is that we are forced to fight.. and that Venezuela, while fighting and maintain a border against an army three times its size and better equipped, can handle 5,000 insertion marines on the shores, and being dropped by air all over the place.
As an armchair general you suck
is entirely possible that it could push an economy on the brink of recession into a full-on recession. Or for that matter, push an economy in a recession into a far worse economic position.
The word your looking for is depression, stagflation and perhaps hyperinflation? however, it doesn?t apply? since a actual fighting war allows the state to bypass all that? so it only applies if we don?t fight.
Then there is the fact that we ARE in a full on recession? its just that you are waiting for them to tell you rather than look at the data yourself.
Since when has the stock market lost over a years worth of growth and we weren?t knee deep in a huge recession?
If China and Russia want to take definitive action to ensure American power is decreased, all they have to do is stoke the flames of conflict in Kosovo and Colombia.
Give me a break? that?s a waste.. its dangerous, and not at all tactically sane
All china has to do is not accept more dollars and just ask for other currencies.
And no one can blame them if they did since the value of their assets are plumettng since the dollar is at its historical low against the euro.
So your not even aware of whats going on.
The only counterbalancing effect is whether those nations would prefer to ride on America’s economic coattails or if they’d rather see American foreign power decline to their advantage
What counterbalancing effect?
You have no idea of the mentality of which your talking about. What limits you and your imagination doesn?t even apply to them (given history and the tenets of the ideology)
March 14, 2008 at 11:20 am