Tag: geopolitics

Aug 27 2010

It’s a Muslim World, America’s Just Living in It

Hat tip to Foster Kamer writing at The Village Voice who notes:

Apropos of nothing — except the whole Islamophobia talking point inspired by that community center downtown (or as people who aren’t from New York/are directionally impaired/are reality-impaired call it, the “Ground Zero Mosque”) has inspired over the last week or two — here’s a nice way to demonstrate just how much of the world’s minority are angry, terrified Americans in regards to the world’s Muslims.

Via Tumblr user Technipol, click to enlarge the following infographic:

Apr 26 2010

Afghanistan and Imperial Wars — How to Achieve Success with Failure

(now cross posted at DailyKos)

The ongoing war in Afghanistan-it can now be thought of as perpetual and unending is more important than a lot of people seem to think. It is not just a far-away semi-colonial war but part of an ongoing struggle for control of Central Asia and the Middle East by the imperial forces of NATO.

It has to be very clear than despite the fact that Europeans are somewhat reluctant partners in this enterprise they are, nevertheless partners and part of essential parts of the Empire. Europeans, like Americans, like their priviledged position in the world. They are a little less bloodthirsty than we are-it is a less essential part of their cultural life. In America violence is loved for its own sake. In Europe it is merely a sometimes necessary component of asserting interests. That’s the only realistic difference between Europe and the United States. The notion that Europeans are more “progressive” than Americans in foreign policy is just not true. Europeans sees the United States as the military arm of the Empire required to insure that world security is maintained particularly energy security. Europeans like the fact the United States provides them with security and are quite willing to accede to the brutality of the the American military in keeping the wogs in check-a brutality that they have far more knowledge of than the American people do. I generalize here because in Europe a large segment of the left is notably against militarism still unlike here.

Having said that the war itself shows us some interesting patterns. As reported in the NYT, the great show “battle” has not really had any real results. The article Violence Helps Taliban Undo Afghan Gains is worth reading but you and I both know what it says and probably knew even before the “battle” happened what the results would be as do all non-compromised journalists and observers of the situation. This and many other stories of the recent war in Afghanistan often buried on the back pages of the NYT tell a tale of woe almost unbelievable in its pathos.  

Aug 15 2008

This Really IS Rocket Science

What is the next move in the chess match?  First Georgia launches an overnight blitzkrieg into South Ossetia. Next the Russians respond with overwhelming force to push out Georgian forces from South Ossetia and Abkhazia and then advance to occupy the east-west highway at Gori and the military and commercial port facilities at Poti. Then the U.S. and Poland sign an agreement for basing U.S. radars and antimissile systems in Poland.

So what is likely to happen next?

It’s about the rockets, stupid.

Expect early sales of Russian anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran and Syria.

The Sunburn (Moskit) anti-ship missile can be launched from a variety of platforms, and it is lethal at ranges of up to 250 kilometers, especially when fired in salvos.

The Iranians already have the Russian Tor 1 anti-aircraft system in their arsenal. It seems likely that the Russians would now move swiftly to provide them also with the longer range (up to 90 kilometers) A-300 system.

Sep 30 2007

An insight on US strategic thinking – why so much cowering fear?

Earlier last week, I wrote a diary (What the west means and what roles NATO plays therein) that used a recent Financial Times editorial as a springboard for a discussion on what the “West” was, and what the use of NATO was – questions that  left-of-center Europeans tend to see quite differently from most Americans, including left-of-center ones.

The editorial, by a well-respected British pundit, was insightful and interesting, and led me to conclude what many on the European Tribune have long suspected: that NATO is simply an instrument for Europe to support US strategic priorities, and that the “West” exists only when Europe (and in particular France) aligns itself unconditionally on US positions. The UK, as per that senior British commentator, has as its main role that of disrupting and dividing Europe when it is insufficiently respectful of US interests.

Since I’m French, you may be tempted to conclude that this is just sour grapes by a citizen of a supposedly declining country; however, what I found more interesting in that article was the dominant tone of fear – about the west being under siege, and needing security against various threats – in the form of coordinated military power and little else. It was a narrow, downcast, closed vision of the world, with little about values, progress or hope.

The comment thread is worth reading too, and one of the last comments, by Loefing, pointed me to another article on the same topic, this time by a graduate of the US Naval War College, Tony Corn. The article, (The Revolution in Transatlantic Affairs, has the same dominant tone of fear, but a much more detailed examination of the world. Given the credentials of its author, it is likely to have serious influence on the thinking of the strategists in the Pentagon, and it is thus worth deconstructing.