George Bush is partly to blame for the troubles in every region the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) report cited as “engaged in brutal combat” in which simultaneous global turning points could initiate an international crisis. I believe all these regions have become trouble spots largely because of the war on terror, and/or George Bush Jnr’s “Axis of Evil” announcements. I will prove my thesis without mentioning the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, because we all know the roles Bush and Blair played in those “trouble spots.”
So, let us start with Iran. The report states Iran’s nuclear announcement as part of its “strategic deterrent defence” against a possible attack by the west, to compliment diplomatic and other means (actively supporting Iraq’s insurgency), also stating that Tehran’s scepticism of the west comes mainly from American foreign policy endeavours since 1979-80 up to and including the Iraq war. Supported by Bush talking about the (imaginary-scare tactic for the U.S/U.K public) “axis of evil” being made up of countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq in the infancy of the first war on terror action in Afghanistan. Therefore, when Bush invaded Iraq with British support, you can understand why long-time U.S enemy Iran’s leadership believed they were probably next. When this is clear, you can see why most analysts believe there is a large Iranian involvement in Iraq’s insurgency, it is a logical conclusion as part of an Iranian self-defence strategy. As likely as Iranian leadership knowing that the Iraq war going badly and turning into a long bloody (war of attrition) battle, would mean Iran was practically safe until the problems in Iraq were overcome. I believe this support for Iraq’s insurgency was to buy the Iranian leadership time, and then came the sudden announcement that they had successfully enriched uranium, sudden because their enrichment programme had been behind closed doors since the eighties, and the announcement came shortly after first talk of a coalition pullout possibly being closer than people expected. Now, I don’t know how efficient Iran’s enrichment programme is or how long it will take them to have sufficient amounts of enriched uranium for a weapon or to create energy, but I believe the announcement was to further deter a possible (likely) American invasion.
Another region the report cited as a trouble spot: North Korea, are known to have weapons grade plutonium. The ISSS report said North Korea had obtained enough plutonium to build between five and eleven nuclear weapons. I say, “If it hasn’t already built them.” The report also mentions that all attempts at a diplomatic solution have failed, largely because, based on his past actions (threaten-use force-think later) and handling of this matter the Pyontang government are suspicious of Bush and his commitment to diplomacy, they believe he has “hostile intent.”
Scaring China with the threat of U.S military action has never really worked either, though the latest method of trying to increase influence by increased trade, while China, cited as another possible flashpoint continues to increase defence budgets and amass WMD’s. Whether this will increase American influence in Chinese affairs is yet to be seen, but it is already showing other “rogue” states that if you want to be able to do as you please in your own country and make your own interpretations on international law (and you’re not America). WMD’s are the way to go if you don’t want to be invaded.
Iran is another example of this, which, between the two will no doubt lead to others. Despite the escalation of all these regions “troubles” into possible “flashpoints” for international crisis, largely being unintended consequences of Bush Jnr’s Threat first-Use Force-Think Later attitude to foreign policy. The U.S administration response to the report sounds like the same old message:
The pentagon is changing its emphasis in “a new strategic environment,” with a 46% increase in its military combat power by 2008, emphasis on highly mobile Special Forces, greater precision-strike capability and new naval “expeditionary and littoral” forces.
The U.S administration has clearly learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq, or its own message: “direct force should only be used as a last resort in a diplomatic world.” Blair and especially Bush seem keen to thrust diplomacy upon everyone else, (contradicting themselves) with the direct force they advocate. Democracy by definition is something that is chosen, projected democracy will never work for the best. Even the U.K had to endure many years of brutal civil wars before establishing lasting democracy. The pentagon demonstrates further stupidity in its (above) “long war” doctrine, by predicting that the “War on Terror” will morph into an indefinite global struggle. I think the IISS report shows it already has, don’t you?
Another region the report cited as a trouble spot: North Korea, are known to have weapons grade plutonium. The ISSS report said North Korea had obtained enough plutonium to build between five and eleven nuclear weapons. I say, “If it hasn’t already built them.” The report also mentions that all attempts at a diplomatic solution have failed, largely because, based on his past actions (threaten-use force-think later) and handling of this matter the Pyontang government are suspicious of Bush and his commitment to diplomacy, they believe he has “hostile intent.”
Scaring China with the threat of U.S military action has never really worked either, though the latest method of trying to increase influence by increased trade, while China, cited as another possible flashpoint continues to increase defence budgets and amass WMD’s. Whether this will increase American influence in Chinese affairs is yet to be seen, but it is already showing other “rogue” states that if you want to be able to do as you please in your own country and make your own interpretations on international law (and you’re not America). WMD’s are the way to go if you don’t want to be invaded.
Iran is another example of this, which, between the two will no doubt lead to others. Despite the escalation of all these regions “troubles” into possible “flashpoints” for international crisis, largely being unintended consequences of Bush Jnr’s Threat first-Use Force-Think Later attitude to foreign policy. The U.S administration response to the report sounds like the same old message:
The pentagon is changing its emphasis in “a new strategic environment,” with a 46% increase in its military combat power by 2008, emphasis on highly mobile Special Forces, greater precision-strike capability and new naval “expeditionary and littoral” forces.
The U.S administration has clearly learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq, or its own message: “direct force should only be used as a last resort in a diplomatic world.” Blair and especially Bush seem keen to thrust diplomacy upon everyone else, (contradicting themselves) with the direct force they advocate. Democracy by definition is something that is chosen, projected democracy will never work for the best. Even the U.K had to endure many years of brutal civil wars before establishing lasting democracy. The pentagon demonstrates further stupidity in its (above) “long war” doctrine, by predicting that the “War on Terror” will morph into an indefinite global struggle. I think the IISS report shows it already has, don’t you?
e-mail:
Homepage:
